scieee Science in your language
[en] (orig)

The Question of Being : Foremost Hermeneutic Pre-condition for Interpreting Heidegger

Abstract

Seventy-five years after the publication of SuZ, this work still not interpreted in the light of the question of being - few exceptions notwithstanding. To commemorate the seventy- fifth anniversary of the publication of SuZ, it is fitting to take up this question, and to attend to its structure and hermeneutic ramifications. Returning to this question we come upon and experience a phenomenon which Heidegger calls «retro- or forward relatedness of being» and which constitutes the foremost hermeneutic pre-condition for gaining access to his entire thought. It is the purpose of this paper to indicate that this relatedness sustains Heidegger's trascendental-horizonal as well as his being-historical thinking.

Read accessible full text

The Question of Being : Foremost Hermeneutic Pre-condition for Interpreting Heidegger

Author: Emad, Parvis
Publisher: Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB
Year: 2002
DOI: 10.5565/rev/enrahonar.386
Source: https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/enrahonar/0211402Xn34/0211402Xn34p11.pdf
Abs ac
Se en y- i e yea s a e he publica ion o SuZ, his wo k s ill no in e p e ed in he ligh
o he ques ion o being — ew excep ions no wi hs anding. To commemo a e he se en-
y- i h anni e sa y o he publica ion o SuZ, i is i ing o ake up his ques ion, and o
a end o i s s uc u e and he meneu ic ami ica ions. Re u ning o his ques ion we come
upon and expe ience a phenomenon which Heidegge calls « e o- o o wa d ela edness
o being» and which cons i u es he o emos he meneu ic p e-condi ion o gaining access
o his en i e hough . I is he pu pose o his pape o indica e ha his ela edness sus-
ains Heidegge ’s ascenden al-ho izonal as well as his being-his o ical hinking.
Key wo ds: ques ion o being, exis ence, he meneu ic, Being and Time.
Resumen. La cues ión del se : condición he menéu ica p e ia indispensable pa a la in e p e-
ación de Heidegge
Pasados se en a y cinco años de la publicación de Se y iempo, es a ob a oda ía no se ha
in e p e ado desde la pe spec i a de la cues ión del se , al ma gen de algunas excepciones.
Pa a conmemo a el se en a y cinco ani e sa io de la publicación de Se y iempo, abo da-
emos es e ema y nos ocupa emos de su es uc u a y de sus ami icaciones he menéu i-
cas. Vol iendo a la cues ión que cen a nues o in e és, ija emos la a ención en la expe iencia
de un enómeno que Heidegge denomina « e o- elación» o «p o o- elación» del se que
cons i uye la p e-condición he menéu ica undamen al a la ho a de accede a la o alidad
de su pensamien o. Es e a ículo se p opone indica que es a elación sus en a an o el pen-
samien o ho izon al- ascenden al de Heidegge como su pensamien o ace ca de la his o-
ia del se .
Palab as cla e: cues ión del se , exis encia, he menéu ica, Se y iempo.
En ahona 34, 2002 11-29
The Ques ion o Being: Fo emos He meneu ic
P e-condi ion o In e p e ing Heidegge
Pa is Emad
Uni e si y o Wisconsin-La C osse. Depa men o Philosophy
La C osse, WI 54601 USA
Table o con en s
I. S uc u e o he Ques ion o Being
II. Exis ence, he Si e’ o Re o-
o Fo wa d Rela edness o Being
III. The Yields o he Ques ion o Being
En ahona 34 001-136 1/2/03 11:55 Página 11
[…] he keen boldness o he ques ion o being, […] always
sha e s machina ion o beings and i s denial o be-ing and
mus pe se e e in he unease and clea age o a b eakage so
ha hinking o be-ing ne e da es o come o es in a
«wo k.»1
On he occasion o he se en y i h anni e sa y o he publica ion o Sein
und Zei i is i ing o e u n o he ques ion o being (die Seins age) and
o discuss i s s uc u e and he meneu ic impo , since his ques ion cons i-
u es he o emos he meneu ic p e-condi ion o in e p e ing Heidegge ’s
hough . We shall ake up he ques ion o being because se en y i e yea s
a e he publica ion o Sein und Zei his wo k is s ill no in e p e ed and
app op ia ed in he ligh o his ques ion, ew excep ions no wi hs anding.
Conside ing he cu en si ua ion su ounding Sein und Zei , one canno
ail o no ice ha o he mos pa he guiding signi icance o he ques ion
o being, and i s he meneu ic impo a e neglec ed. I is ou conside ed
opinion ha he ailu e o p ope ly a end o he ques ion o being is ul i-
ma ely esponsible o he many misin e p e a ions ha p esen ly bese
Heidegge ’s hough .
I is well known ha Heidegge epea edly e e ed o he ques ion o being
as his one and only ques ion and iewed i as pi o al o his en i e hough .
Whe he i was in Being and Time ha he said « he ques ion o he meaning
o being should be asked»,2o in Con ibu ions o Philosophy ha he inqui ed
«Bu how does be-ing sway?»3in bo h wo ks he s essed he guiding signi icance
o his ques ion o unde s anding he anscenden al-ho izonal o being-his-
o ical pa hways o his hinking. Howe e , when we look closely a ecen
wo ks ha deal wi h Heidegge , especially hose de o ed o Sein und Zei , we
ind ha o he mos pa hey go w ong because hey ei he miscons ue he
ques ion o being, o igno e i al oge he . Cha ac e izing he ques ion o being
as an «e he eal ques ion»,4miscons uing being (Sein) by con la ing unda-
12 En ahona 34, 2002 Pa is Emad
1. M. HEIDEGGER (1997), Besinnung (F ank u am Main: V. Klos e mann), p. 51. All e e -
ences in he ex o Heidegge ’s Gesam ausgabe use abb e ia ion GA ollowed by olume
and page numbe . Fo de ailed bibliog aphical in o ma ion ega ding his edi ion, see
Heidegge S udies (Be lin: Duncke & Humblod , 2001), p. 187 . All ansla ions om
olumes o Heidegge ’s Gesam ausgabe a e by he au ho . Bold ype inside quo a ion ma ks
and in he body o he ex a e used o emphasis.
2. GA 2/6.
3. M. HEIDEGGER, Con ibu ions o Philosophy (F om Enowning), ansla ed by Pa is Emad and
Kenne h Maly (Blooming on: Uni e si y o Indiana, 1999), p. 5, he ea e e e ed o as
Con ibu ions ollowed by page numbe .
4. T. KISIEL, The Genesis o Heidegge ’s «Being and Time» (Be keley: Uni e si y o Cali o nia,
1993), p. 364. Fo a ho oughgoing c i ique o his wo k, see Tomy S. KALARIPARAMBIL,
«Towa ds Ske ching he “Genesis” o Being and Time» in Heidegge S udies (Be lin: Duncke
& Humbold ), 16/ 2000, p. 189-220.
En ahona 34 001-136 1/2/03 11:55 Página 12
men al on ology and sociology,5ob usca ing he ques ion o being wi h «an
al e na i e on ological model»,6and he claim ha Heidegge «p i ileges ques-
ioning»7— o men ion only a ew— a e among he mos bla an e o s ha
shape ecen in e p e a ions o Heidegge ’s hough . A glance a he ecen li-
e a u e shows ha mos in e p e e s do no add ess he s uc u e o he ques-
ion o being, and do no ealize ha Heidegge analyzes his ques ion, because
he wan s o show ha being e e be a es in his ques ion. The cu en mis-
in e p e a ions a e clea indica ions ha commen a o s ha e no ye g asped
he ques ion o being as he o emos he meneu ic p e-condi ion o in e -
p e ing Heidegge . Thus i should be clea ha , we mus e u n o his ques-
ion.
Howe e indispu able he impo ance o he ques ion o being is o app o-
p ia ely en e ing in o, and in e p e ing Heidegge ’s hough in gene al and
Sein und Zei in pa icula , i is no ipso ac o clea wha his e u ning is all
abou . To e u n o his ques ion means gaining access o, and expe iencing a
phenomenon, which Heidegge in his analysis o he s uc u e o he ques ion
o being calls « e o- o o wa d ela edness» (Rück- ode Vo bezogenhei )8o
being. Ques ion o being is he o emos he meneu ic p e-condi ion o in e -
p e ing Heidegge because being is e o- o o wa d ela ed o, and e e be -
a es in his ques ion. Thus o see he guiding signi icance o his ela edness
and e e be a ion, we ha e o e u n o he analysis o he s uc u e o he
ques ion o being.
The Ques ion o Being En ahona 34, 2002 13
5. H. DREYFUS (1991), Being-in- he-Wo ld, Camb idge (MA): MIT P ess, p. 145. In i s en i e-
y his wo k is guided by he mis aken assump ion ha
Socie y is he on ological sou ce o he amilia i y and eadiness ha makes he on ical disco e y
o en i ies, o o he s, and e en o mysel possible (p. 145).
This shows how li le D ey us unde s ands Heidegge ’s concep o he wo ld. Al hough
wo ld in Heidegge is no he «sou ce» o any hing, i we insis in calling i a «sou ce», we
should keep in mind ha i is no socie y bu wo ld ha is he on ological «sou ce» o he
disco e y o «en i ies». The eason is simple: like Umwel , socie y oo is inne wo ldly. D ey us
misin e p e s he wo ld because he ails o p ope ly g asp he ques ion o being. Fo mo e
on his ailu e, see no e 14 below.
6. J. MCCUMBER (1999), Me aphysics and Op ession: Heidegge ’s Challenge o Wes e n
Philosophy (Blooming on: Uni e si y o Indiana, p. 208). In his book, McCumbe ails
o app oach Being and Time h ough an analysis o he ques ion o being. Ins ead he
imposes upon his wo k he p econcei ed hesis acco ding o which Heidegge in Being
and Time pu s o h
[…] an al e na i e on ological model, one on which a leas some beings a e gene a ed and shaped
no by o m bu by […] an ac i e, shaping gap (p. 14).
McCumbe assumes ha his gap, is de ec able in he ecs ases o empo ali y. He hus
ails o see ha his empo ali y is a one old. Fo a ho oughgoing c i ique o his un ound-
ed hesis, see Thomas KALARY, «He meneu ic P e-condi ions o In e p e ing Heidegge :
A look a Recen Li e a u e» (Pa One), Heidegge S udies, 18/ 2002, p. 159-180.
7. J. DERRIDA (1987), De l’ esp i : Heidegge e la ques ion, Pa is: PUF, passim.
8. GA 2/ 11.
En ahona 34 001-136 1/2/03 11:55 Página 13
I. S uc u e o he Ques ion o Being
Fundamen al on ology begins wi h depic ion o s uc u e o he « undamen-
al ques ion»9o being, i.e., s uc u e o a ques ion, which al hough unasked
and unheeded, has been he spu behind philosophical hinking all along. I is,
he e o e, ai o say ha his depic ion ep esen s a wa e shed in Wes e n phi-
losophy’s p eoccupa ion wi h being. Howe e , in addi ion o i s impo ance
o he his o y o Wes e n philosophy, depic ion o his s uc u e also holds
he key o unde s anding ha Heidegge ’s hinking o being di e en ia es
i sel om he hinking o being, which as me aphysics, has domina ed and
shaped Wes e n philosophy. Equally impo an is ha by analyzing he s uc-
u e o he ques ion o being, Heidegge pu s o h being’s e o- o o wa d
ela edness o his ques ion, and hus p o ides a unique access o he unda-
men al-on ological as well as being-his o ical pa hways o his hinking.
I is impo an o no e ha Heidegge ’s demons a ion o s uc u e o he
ques ion o being comes as a o mal indica ion ( o male Anzeige). I is also
impo an o no e ha being’s e o- o o wa d ela edness — once expe i-
enced — emo es he ques ion o being ou o a ension which in o mal indi-
ca ion o his ques ion p e ails be ween he phase o indica ion and he phase
o ul illmen . In he momen o enac men o he ques ion o being his en-
sion no longe holds: in ha momen we come o expe ience he esonance
o being, i.e., being’s e o- o o wa d ela edness o ques ioning.
Speci ically inqui ing in o he meaning o being, ques ion o being is s uc-
u ed, i s by « ha which his ques ion asks abou » (das Ge ag e), secondly by
« ha which his ques ion in e oga es» (das Be ag e) and hi dly by « ha which
his ques ion asce ains» (das E ag e).10 By ou lining his s uc u e, Heidegge
shows ha e o- o o wa d ela edness o being is he momen we ha e o ully
g asp i we wan o en e in o he undamen al-on ological as well as being-his-
o ical pa hways o his hinking. In o de o see his ela edness clea ly, we shall
begin by a ending o he i s and hi d s uc u al i ems in he ques ion o being.
The analysis o he s uc u e o he ques ion o being begins wi h he insigh
acco ding o which e e y ques ion is guided in ad ance by wha he ques ion
seeks, which in he case o he ques ion o being is he meaning o being. Bu
we could no seek his meaning i i we e u e ly unknown o us, which means
ha we mus ha e an access o, and be amilia wi h being and i s meaning.
In aising his ques ion we do no know wha being means bu when
[…] we ask, «wha is being?» we a e si ua ed wi hin an unde s anding o he
«is» wi hou being able o concep ually es ablish wha he «is» con eys.11
I is in iew o si ua edness in, and amilia i y wi h being and i s meaning,
ha in o mal indica i e espec Heidegge iden i ies being as wha is asked
14 En ahona 34, 2002 Pa is Emad
9. GA 2/6.
10. GA 2/ 7.
11. Ibid.
En ahona 34 001-136 1/2/03 11:55 Página 14
abou in his ques ion. The signi icance o his iden i ica ion guides and eaches
in o Heidegge ’s he meneu ic e o s which dis inguish his undamen al-on o-
logical and being-his o ical hinking om adi ional p eoccupa ion wi h being.
Howe e , an impo an consequence o his iden i ica ion is he ealiza ion
ha being and i s meaning equi e a demons a ion and an exposi ion en i e-
ly hei own. As Heidegge pu s i
[…] being, wha is asked abou , demands i s own kind o exposi ion which is
essen ially di e en om he disco e y o beings.12
The same is ue o wha his ques ion asce ains, namely he meaning o
being. This meaning oo equi es i s own concep uali y, which again dis in-
guishes i sel essen ially om he concep s in which beings ob ain hei de e -
mina ion acco ding o meaning.13
Exposi ion and concep ualiza ion clea ly in ol e language. Thus when
Heidegge s esses he need o an exposi ion and concep ualiza ion ha a e
peculia o being and i s meaning, he alludes o he language o being. (This
shows ha as ea ly as he analysis o s uc u e o ques ion o being, Heidegge
«speaks» he language o being. Because his language is no he amilia lan-
guage, any a emp o « ansla e» his language in o a «mo e amilia » language
amoun s o abandoning Heidegge ’s hough al oge he .)
Wha can be said abou being — being we a e al eady amilia wi h and
o which we ha e an access ia si ua edness in, and unde s anding o being?
When we inqui e abou being we al eady know ha being is
[…] ha which de e mines a being as a being, ha is, ha in iew o which
(wo au hin) a being, howe e i may be discussed, is always al eady unde s ood.14
The Ques ion o Being En ahona 34, 2002 15
12. GA 2/ 8.
13. GA 2/ 8-9.
14. GA 2/ 8. We conside his cha ac e iza ion o being pi o al o in e p e ing Being and Time,
and he ailu e o p ope ly g asp his cha ac e iza ion esponsible o D ey us’s comple e
misin e p e a ion o his wo k. Wi h he i s s ep ha D ey us akes o en e in o he s uc-
u e o he ques ion o being, he shows how li le he unde s ands his s uc u e. He equa es
Heidegge ’s cha ac e iza ion o being (namely « ha which de e mines a being as a being, ha
in iew o which (wo au hin) a being… is always al eady unde s ood)», wi h a adi ional
[…] o mula ha is su icien ly ambiguous o co e some so o sup eme Being, a cons i u ing ac i -
i y like ha o a anscenden al ego, and he in elligibili y e ealed by ou backg ound p ac ices (p. 12).
Thus he ails o see ha being is ha in iew o which (wo au hin) beings a e unde s ood.
This ailu e is also e iden in D ey us’s a emp o b ing in o English he cen al wo d
wo au hin which he ansla es as «on he basis o which». Being, o wha is asked abou , is
no «a basis» bu « ha in iew o which» (wo au hin) beings a e unde s ood. Wha is a
s ake he e is « iewing», i.e., a phenomenological «ac » ha has no hing in common wi h «bas-
ing» some hing on some hing else. By ailing o g asp being, D ey us pa es he way o
misin e p e ing Di ision I and Di ision II o Being and Time: he miscons ues Di ision I
by aking i as he place in which Heidegge espouses p agma ism a la W. James and J.
Dewy, (c . op. ci ., p. 6) and he misin e p e s Di ision II by aking i as he place in which
Heidegge ad oca es exis en ialism (c ., op. ci ., p. XIII).
En ahona 34 001-136 1/2/03 11:55 Página 15

Because we a e al eady amilia wi h, and ha e an access o being, we can say
ha being is wha de e mines a being as a being and is ha in iew o which
a being is unde s ood. This means ha we al eady know ha being is di e en
om beings, which is o says ha we a e al eady amilia wi h, and ha e an
access o he di e ence be ween being and a being. How else would we de e -
mine a being as a being unless we a e guided by being as ha in iew o which
a being is always al eady unde s ood? When Heidegge says ha « he being
o a being “is” i sel no a being»15 he o e s he i s o mal indica i e o mu-
la ion o he on ological di e ence.
This means ha when in o mal indica i e espec Heidegge poin s ou
ha wha is asked abou in he ques ion o being is being, and wha is asce -
ained in his ques ion is he meaning o being, he demons a es ha his hink-
ing is guided in ad ance by wha anspi es (is no assumed) as on ological
di e ence. This makes clea ha he en i e y o he analysis o s uc u e o
ques ion o being is ca ied ou unde he auspices o he on ological di e -
ence — an analysis ha ex ends o he second s uc u al i em ( ha which is
in e oga ed).
Heidegge p oceeds o o mally indica e wha is in e oga ed in he ques-
ion o being by aking ano he look a (o e- iewing) wha is asked abou in
he ques ion o being. He concludes ha since wha is asked abou , namely
being, is always al eady being o a being, wha is in e oga ed mus be a being:
Inso a as being makes up wha is asked abou , and being means being o a
being, wha is in e oga ed in he ques ion o being p o es o be a being i sel .
The la e is, so o speak, wha is ques ioned wi h ega d o i s being.16
Bu how a e we o ind ou which being is o be in e oga ed? Does his
equi e ha we un h ough and examine e e y concei able class and kind o
beings, o is i he case ha he being o be in e oga ed shows i sel undis-
o ed as i is om wi hin he undamen al ques ion o being? Concei ably
any hing and e e y hing is a being. E e y hing we alk abou , e e y hing we
ha e in mind, e e y hing owa d which, one way o he o he , we compo
ou sel es is a being. Gi en his omnip esence o beings, we ha e o say ha
in aising he ques ion o being we a e always con on ed wi h modes and
ways o being:
Being esides in ha ness and wha ness, in eali y, ex an ness, cons ancy, ali-
di y, exis ence and in « he e is».17
When we conside hese modes and ways o being in which being means
being o a being, we ha e o conclude abo e all ha wha has o be in e o-
16 En ahona 34, 2002 Pa is Emad
15. GA 2/ 8.
16. GA 2/ 9.
17. Ibid.
En ahona 34 001-136 1/2/03 11:55 Página 16
ga ed is a being. The ea e , we ha e o p oceed wi h de e mining he p ope
access o his being.
On he way o de e mining he being which is o be in e oga ed and ind-
ing he igh access o his being, Heidegge b ings oge he — one migh say
has ily — he meaning o being, and he being which is o be in e oga ed
(bu is as ye no wholly iden i ied) and asks:
In which being is he meaning o being o be disce ned; wi h which being we
ha e o begin in o de o conclude wi h being?18
Heidegge is awa e ha his ques ion is has ily o mula ed, because in a
ma ginal no e he poin s ou ha his ques ion con ains wi hin i sel wo qui e
di e en ques ions. While he i s ques ion «In which being is he meaning
o being o be disce ned?» implies ha his meaning is disce nible in a being,
he second ques ion «Wi h which being we ha e o begin in o de o conclude
wi h being?» implies ha depa ing om a being leads di ec ly o being and
i s meaning. These wo ques ions do no clea ly keep apa he meaning o
being as such and he meaning o being o a being in whose being he mean-
ing o being can be disce ned. Heidegge c i icizes his passage and hus opens
he way o elucida ing i . He says:
He e wo di e en ques ions ollow each o he ; misunde s andable, especial-
ly wi h ega d o he ole o Dasein.19
Indeed he e wo di e en ques ions ollow each o he inso a as «In which
being is he meaning o being o be disce ned?» is a ques ion qui e di e en
om «wi h which being we ha e o begin in o de o conclude wi h being?».
Se ing ou om hese ques ions in o de o ind ou wha is o be in e oga -
ed, and no di e en ia ing he ques ion «In which being is he meaning o
being o be disce ned?» om he ques ion «Wi h which being we ha e o begin
in o de o conclude wi h being?» amoun s o succumbing o he misunde -
s anding ha bo h ques ions ask abou he same hing.20 These ques ions en-
The Ques ion o Being En ahona 34, 2002 17
18. GA 2/ 9. Rega ding his passage, c ., he pionee ing wo k o F.-W. VON HERRMANN (1987),
He meneu ische Phänomenologie des Daseins: Eine E läu e ung on Sein und Zei , ol. 1
(F ank u am Main: V. Klos e mann), p. 59-65.
19. Ibid.
20. Had D ey us g asped he di e ence be ween hese wo ques ions, and had he ealized ha
he meaning o he being o be in e oga ed in he ques ion o being is no he same as he
meaning o being, p esumably he would ha e e ained om saying ha «wha is s udied in
Being and Time ul ima ely is no Dasein bu Dasein’s way o being» (op. ci ., p.14). Since he
meaning o he being o Dasein is no he same as he meaning o being, and because Dasein
is a being in whose being he meaning o being as such can be disce ned, i is w ong o
limi Being and Time o a s udy o Dasein’s way o being. Fo , gi en he di e ence be ween
he meaning o he being o be in e oga ed and he meaning o being, wha is s udied in
Being and Time can also be said o be he meaning o being. Fo his see GA 2, Di ision II,
and GA 24, which Heidegge designa es «The new elabo a ion o Di ision III o Pa One
o Being and Time».
En ahona 34 001-136 1/2/03 11:55 Página 17
de misunde s andable he ole o he being o be in e oga ed (Dasein) inso-
a as hey may be aken o sugges ha we can accomplish he exposi ion o
wha is asked abou , i.e., being by depa ing om he being o be in e oga -
ed, and hen iden i y he meaning o his being wi h he meaning o being
as such, i.e., meaning o beings o he han Dasein. Howe e , conside ing he
un olding o undamen al on ology as a whole (which akes he en i e y o
Being and Time and The Basic P oblems o Phenomenology) we ha e o say ha
he meaning o he being o be in e oga ed (Dasein), namely empo ali y
(Zei lichkei ) is no a all he same as he meaning o beings o he han Dasein,
i.e. Tempo ali y (Tempo ali ä ). We disce n he meaning o beings o he han
Dasein in he being o be in e oga ed wi hou con la ing he meaning o he
being o be in e oga ed wi h he meaning o being.
G an ed ha we di e en ia e he meaning o being as such om he mean-
ing o he being o be in e oga ed — which p esupposes ha we unde s and
he ami ica ions o he wo ques ions conce ned wi h «in which being…?»
and «wi h which being…?» — we should be in a posi ion o o mally indica e
he being o be in e oga ed and de e mine he access o his being. Heidegge
s esses he impo ance o his access when he says ha «In iew o ha which
is o be in e oga ed in he ques ion o being, his ques ion equi es ob ain-
ing, and secu ing in ad ance he igh access o a being».21 His conce n wi h
he igh access o he being o be in e oga ed becomes mo e clea when he asks:
Is he poin o depa u e a bi a y o has a ce ain being a p eeminence (Vo ang)
in wo king ou he ques ion o being?22
In o de o o mally indica e wha is o be in e oga ed, we mus ha e an access
o a being ha is a p eeminen being. The p eeminence o his being makes
i an exempla y being and opens in ad ance he igh access o his being. The
o mal indica i e ques o wha is o be in e oga ed eaches a decisi e s age
when we ealize ha he being o be in e oga ed is a p eeminen and exempla y
being. Bu wi h his ealiza ion we ha e no ye de e mined which being is he
exempla y being. Tha is why Heidegge asks: «Which is his exempla y being
and in wha sense is his being a p eeminen being?»23 No soone does he aise
his ques ion ha he ecognizes he isk ha comes along wi h his wo d «exem-
pla y». Tha is why in a ma ginal no e he explici ly c i iques his wo d and
says ha i is «misunde s andable».24
In an e o o speci ically iden i y he p eeminen being, i is misunde -
s andable o call he being o be in e oga ed an exempla y being, because his
wo d could be aken o mean a being which is an «example» and as such belongs
18 En ahona 34, 2002 Pa is Emad
21. GA 2/ 9.
22. Ibid. We ansla e Vo ang wi h p eeminence in o de o dis inguish i om p io i y, i.e.,
om a wo d wi h s ong ies o epis emology.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid.
En ahona 34 001-136 1/2/03 11:55 Página 18
o a class. The connec ion wi h a class is wha makes he designa ion «exem-
pla y» isky. As long as we a e aken in by he no ion o membe ship in a class,
we ail o see he p eeminence o his being in a p ope ligh . Fo , his p eeminence
has no hing o do wi h membe ship in a class. The being o be in e oga ed is p e-
eminen , no because i is an «example» o , and belongs o a class bu because i
is si ua ed in an unde s anding o he «is». I is his si ua edness ha makes pos-
sible o his being o be he being whe ein he meaning o being can be dis-
ce ned, and i is his si ua edness ha accoun s o he p eeminence o , and he
igh access o his being. The only way o use he wo d exempla y app op i-
a ely is o use i agains he backg ound o si ua edness in, and unde s anding
o he «is». We can say hen ha he being o be in e oga ed is p eeminen
among beings because o i s si ua edness in he unde s anding o he «is». I he
p eeminence o his being is because o i s si ua edness in unde s anding o
he «is», hen his unde s anding is wha p o ides an access o his being.
Howe e , si ua edness in unde s anding o he «is», i.e., unde s anding o
being, and p eeminence o he being o be in e oga ed, as well as he access o
his being a e mani es in ce ain compo men s ha a e cons i u i e o his
being. Heidegge enume a es hese compo men s when he says:
I we a e o explici ly aise he ques ion o being and o enac his ques ion as
comple ely anspa en o i sel , hen, ollowing elucida ions we ha e gi en so
a , elabo a ion o his ques ion equi es us o explica e he way we u n ou gaze
owa d being, he way we unde s and and concep ually g asp meaning, p e-
pa e he possibili y o he igh choice o he exempla y being, and wo k ou
he genuine kind o access o his being.25
By enume a ing hese compo men s and by naming each speci ically, Heidegge
indica es ha wi hou excep ion hese compo men s a e compo men s o a
being ha is si ua ed in unde s anding o being. Acco dingly, u ning he gaze
owa d being no less han o he compo men s (g asping meaning, p epa ing
he possibili y o he igh access o his being) mani es s a being ha unde -
s ands being. I is in iew o he showing powe o hese compo men s ha
Heidegge says ha hey a e cons i u i e o ques ioning and o he being o
ques ione :
Tu ning he gaze, unde s anding and g asping o , choosing and access o, a e
cons i u i e compo men s o ques ioning and a e hus hemsel es modes o
being o a ce ain being ha we ques ione s ou sel es always a e.26
Taking cognizance o hese compo men s, and bea ing in mind ha each
mani es s unde s anding o being, we ealize ha ques ioning is no an adden-
dum o unde s anding o being bu inhe es in his unde s anding. We also
The Ques ion o Being En ahona 34, 2002 19
25. Ibid.
26. GA 2/ 9- 10.
En ahona 34 001-136 1/2/03 11:55 Página 19
his ela ionship, Dasein unde s ands i s being «in some way and wi h some
explici ness». To say ha Dasein unde s ands i s being mo e o less explici ly
is o say ha his unde s anding is ne e comple e — i is ongoing. Mo eo e ,
o say ha Dasein unde s ands i s being mo e o less explici ly is o say ha
his unde s anding does no u n he being o Dasein in o an objec o e lec-
ion. This means ha he mo e o less explici unde s anding o Dasein’s being
does no occu in he ealm o e lec ion. And he eason o his is clea : inso-
a as his unde s anding is unde s anding o wha Dasein has o be as a pos-
sibili y, and because his possibili y canno be objec i ied as ac uali y, Dasein’s
unde s anding o i s being is no accessible o e lec ion and objec i ica ion.
P esen ing one o Heidegge ’s ounda ional insigh s, he las sen ence in
his passage has a guiding signi icance ha ex ends o ques ion o being, and
ia his o undamen al-on ological as well as being-his o ical pa hways o his
hinking. I eads:
I is peculia o his being ha i s being is disclosed o i sel wi h (mi ) and
h ough (du ch) his being.37
We call his sen ence ounda ional because by he use Heidegge makes o
he wo ds wi h and h ough his sen ence pa es he way o unde s anding
ha being is e o- o o wa d ela ed o exis ence o Dasein (no exclusi ely
o ques ioning) which among o he hings mani es s he enac men o ha
ela edness. The guiding signi icance o he wo ds «wi h», and « h ough» is
such as o elucida es exis ence and ia his Heidegge ’s undamen al-on o-
logical, and mu a is mu andis his being-his o ical hinking. The e o e, ou
a emp o unde s and ha being is e o- o o wa d ela ed o exis ence o
Dasein — an a emp ha is guided by his ounda ional insigh — begins
wi h aking a close look a hese wo wo ds.
I should be poin ed ou ha when Heidegge says ha i is peculia o
Dasein ha i s being is disclosed o i sel wi h his being, he e he wo d «wi h»
does no imply ha disclosedness (E schlossenhei ) comes along wi h, o ha
i accompanies Dasein’s being. Ra he , he e his wo d wi h should be aken in
he sense o «in acco dance wi h». In his sense hen when we ead ha Dasein’s
being is disclosed o i sel «wi h» his being, we unde s and his disclosedness
as wha happens in acco dance wi h Dasein’s h ownness in o disclosedness o
being. This demons a es ha he wo d «wi h» is Heidegge ’s i s o mal indi-
ca ion o h ownness (Gewo enhei ) o Dasein in o disclosedness o being.
I should also be poin ed ou ha when Heidegge says ha i is peculia o
Dasein ha i s being is disclosed o i sel h ough his being, he wo d « h ough»
does no imply ha Dasein goes in o his disclosedness a one end as i we e,
and comes ou o i a he o he end. Ra he , his wo d « h ough» should be
aken in he sense o «by means o .» In his sense hen when we ead ha
26 En ahona 34, 2002 Pa is Emad
37. Ibid.
En ahona 34 001-136 1/2/03 11:55 Página 26

Dasein’s being is disclosed o i sel « h ough» his being, we unde s and his
disclosedness as wha happens by means o his being. Disclosedness happens
by means o his being, because Dasein is he being ha p ojec s-open i s
h ownness in o disclosedness o being. This demons a es ha he wo d
« h ough» is Heidegge ’s i s o mal indica ion o p ojec ing-open o En wu .
Ha ing es ablished ha «wi h» o mally indica es h ownness in o dis-
closdness o being, and « h ough» o mally indica es p ojec ing-opening o
disclosedness o being, we e u n o ou ounda ional sen ence. To say ha i
is peculia o Dasein ha i s being is disclosed o i sel wi h and h ough his
being, is he same as saying ha Dasein is a h own-p ojec ing-open, i.e., a
gewo ene En wu . Dasein is a h own-p ojec ing-open, because i p ojec s-open
he disclosedness o being in o which Dasein is h own. When we look closely
a his « h ownness,» his «p ojec ing-open» — a his «wi h», and « h ough» —
we ealize ha wi h his ounda ional sen ence Heidegge pu s o h a com-
po men . Fo o be disclosed in i s being Dasein enac s a compo men ha
in ol es h ownness and p ojec ing, i.e., is a h own-p ojec ing-open. I is by
exclusi ely holding his compo men in his ega d ha Heidegge ci cum-
sc ibes exis ence:
We call exis ence he being i sel owa d which, one way o he o he , Dasein can
compo i sel , and somehow always compo s i sel .38
And his is no a compo men ha is wholly new o us. We came ac oss his
compo men , albei wi hou explici ly calling i a compo men , when we
spoke o he possibili y o be he asking o he ques ion o being; when
we add essed being’s e o- o o wa d ela edness o he disclosed possibili y o
ques ioning. By add essing he asking o he ques ion o being as a possibili-
y o be, by s essing being’s e o- o o wa d ela edness o ques ioning, we p e-
supposed he enac men o a compo men , which as h own p ojec ing-open,
is Dasein’s way o compo ing i sel owa d i s being. This compo men is
no hing o he han enac men o exis ence. Now inso a as being is e o- o o -
wa d ela ed o ques ioning and inso a as ques ioning p esupposes he enac -
men o exis ence, we ha e o say ha being is also e o- o o wa d ela ed
o exis ence. We see mo e clea ly being’s ela edness o exis ence when we
examine his enac men closely.
As compo ing owa d he being ha Dasein is, exis ence is dis inguished
by a anscending, o su passing inso a as when exis ence is enac ed, (when
h own p ojec ing-open o disclosedness o being comes o pass) Dasein su -
passes i s own being as well as he beings among whom Dasein is. This means
ha in each and e e y ins ance when Dasein expe iences wha «is» (be i a
chai o a god ha is) Dasein su passes i s own being as well as beings among
whom Dasein is, since Dasein p ojec s-open he disclosedness o being in o
The Ques ion o Being En ahona 34, 2002 27
38. Ibid.
En ahona 34 001-136 1/2/03 11:55 Página 27
which Dasein is h own. I is in ull conside a ion o his su passing ha
Heidegge says o being ha i is no hing o he han anscendence:
Being and s uc u e o being su pass each and e e y being and e e y possible
exis en (seiende) de e mina ion o a being. Being is anscendence pu e and sim-
ple.39
The compo men ha is called exis ence is he enac men o a su passing,
i.e., enac men o anscendence o being. This has signi ican consequences o
g asping being’s e o- o o wa d ela edness o exis ence.
When we speak o being’s e o- o o wa d ela edness o exis ence, we
should keep in mind ha i is as anscendence ha being is e o- o o wa d
ela ed o exis ence. Being is e o- o o wa d ela ed o exis ence — e e -
be a es he ein — inso a as enac men o exis ence is wha sus ains he com-
po men called ques ioning o which as we ha e seen being is e o- o o wa d
ela ed. To expound on his a bi u he , we can say ha since enac men o
exis ence is enac men o anscendence, and because being is anscendence pu e
and simple, and because being is e o- o o wa d ela ed o ques ioning, we
ha e o say ha being is also e o- o o wa d ela ed o exis ence inso a as
exis ence is he being o Dasein as ques ione . Thus we es ablish ha exis ence
is he «si e» o which being is e o- o o wa d ela ed.
I is in iew o he su passing o anscending ha occu s as exis ence, as well
as in conside a ion o de e mina ion o being as anscendence pu e and sim-
ple ha Heidegge ejec s as i ele an any a emp ha wan s o educe an-
scendence and anscenden al in undamen al on ology o be Kan ’s and
Husse l’s anscenden al hinking.40 Fo , nei he o he hese wo hinke has
access o exis ence o Dasein, ha is he «si e» whe ein being’s e o- o o -
wa d ela edness is mani es as anscendence.
III. The Yields o he Ques ion o Being
Guided by a conce ed e o o b ing o ligh he s uc u e o he ques ion o
being as well as he ques ioning ha un a els his s uc u e, we a e now in a posi-
ion o ga he oge he he ou come o his e o and o add ess wha his
jou ney in he domain o he ques ion o being yields. We add ess his yield
di ec ly when we poin o a ci cle ha uns om being’s e o- o o wa d ela -
28 En ahona 34, 2002 Pa is Emad
39. GA 2/ 51.
40. On his poin see M. HEIDEGGER, «Zum Einblick in die No wendigkei de Keh e», in
Vom Rä sel des Beg i s: Fes sch i ü F.-W. on He mann, ed. Paola-Ludo ika Co iando
(1999), Be lin: Duncke & Humbold , p. 1-3. One o he many laws o T. Kisiel’s The
Genesis o Heidegge ’s «Being and Time», is p ecisely he ailu e o g asp anscendence and
anscenden al in e ms o he enac men o exis ence. C ., ibid, p. 313 . When Kisiel
speaks o Heidegge ’s enewed in e es in Kan and assumes ha anscendence is an ex en-
sion o Kan ’s anscenden al hinking, he (Kisiel) be ays a undamen al lack o unde -
s anding exis ence acco ding o undamen al on ology.
En ahona 34 001-136 1/2/03 11:55 Página 28
edness o ques ioning, and om ques ioning back o being’s e o- o o wa d
ela edness. We add ess his yield di ec ly when we allude o a ci cle ha uns
om he ques ion o being o exis ence and o undamen al on ology and om
exis ence and undamen al on ology back o ques ion o being. I goes wi hou
saying hen ha his e o- o o wa d ela edness sus ains Being and Time in
which Heidegge un olds he pa hway o anscenden al-ho izonal hinking. I
also goes wi hou saying ha his e o- o o wa d ela edness sus ains
Con ibu ions o Philosophy in which Heidegge un olds he pa hway o being-
his o ical hinking. Wha b ings us o his conclusion is he ealiza ion ha
ques ioning succeeds in un a eling he s uc u e o he ques ion o being,
because ques ioning is ha o which being is e o- o o wa d ela ed. This
ela edness o eshadows wha mus be called belongingness o his ques ion
o, and i s empowe men by being, which is one o he many insigh s ha we
gain om a close eading o Heidegge ’s Con ibu ions o Philosophy.
The e o- o o wa d ela edness o being o he ques ion o being b ings
an unsu passable ligh o Dasein and shows ha i is being as such ha shapes
he un olding o he en i e cou se o undamen al on ology. I e o- o o -
wa d ela edness o being o he ques ion o being b ings ligh o Dasein and
o undamen al on ology, hen his on ology mus be g asped in he ligh o
e o- o o wa d ela edness o being o Dasein ia he ques ion o being. And
his shows how i ele an i is o speak o a «Heidegge I», «Heidegge II», a
«Dasein-o ien ed e sus a being-o ien ed»41 phase in Heidegge ’s hinking.
Gi en his e o- o o wa d ela edness o being o ques ioning, we ha e o
say ha ques ion o being is a ques ion ha di ec ly and unmis akably is unde
he sway o being. Which is ano he way o saying ha his ques ion is nei-
he an e he eal ques ion no deli e s an al e na i e on ological model, no
concei es being in adi ional e ms, no is an ac i i y p i ileged by he human
subjec bu is a ques ion ha comes om being because being is e o- o o -
wa d ela ed o, and e e be a es in his ques ion.
The Ques ion o Being En ahona 34, 2002 29
41. See J.J. KOCKELMANS (1985), Heidegge on A and A Wo k, Do d ech : Ma inus Nijho ,
p. 76.
En ahona 34 001-136 1/2/03 11:55 Página 29