Thursday, July 31, 2008

Being-toward-death

an extract from Being and Time (from what I could gather, Heidegger is talking about something similar to the idea of "memento mori" - awareness of death, or "the potentiality of being" to use his phrase, as something which is the key to authentic existence and also since it is the "ownmost", or most individual, potentiality, it is also the key to human identity. In the sense that no one can die for any one else. Each of us have to die our "own" deaths.)

*********

Being-toward-death is the anticipation of a potentiality-of-being of that being whose kind of being is anticipation itself. In the anticipatory revealing of this potentiality-of-being, Da-sein discloses itself to itself with regard to its most extreme possibility. But to project oneself upon one's ownmost potentiality of being means to be able to understand oneself in the being of the being thus revealed: to exist. Anticipation shows itself as the possibility of understanding one's ownmost and extreme potentiality-of-being, that is, as the possibility of authentic existence. Its ontological constitution must be made visible by setting forth the concrete structure of anticipation of death. How is the phenomenal definition of this structure to be accomplished? Evidently by defining the characteristics of anticipatory disclosure which must belong to it so that it can become the pure understanding of the ownmost nonrelational possibility not-to-be-bypassed which is certain and, as such, indefinite. We must remember that understanding oneself in the potentiality-of-being that reveals itself in the project.

Death is the ownmost possibility of Da-sein. Being toward it discloses to Da-sein its ownmost potentiality-of-being in whic hit is concerned about the being of Da-sein absolutely. Here the fact can become evident to Da-sein that in the eminent possibility of itself it is torn away from the they, that is, anticipation can always already have torn itself away from the they. The understanding of this "ability," however, first reveals its factical lostness in the everydayness of the they-self.

4 comments:

Kubla Khan said...

What is the gist of this passage? Is this how philosophy should be written?

please don't mind but even if it is Heidegger, should one read such incomprehensible incomprehensibilty and how?
should not philosophy have a language that even if it talks of concepts, makes it intelligible to everyone?

I am glad that you posted this extract for it will prevent me from reading Heidegger.

Alok said...

I understand what you mean and couldn't sympathise more...

I have just been reading from it randomly and also some of his essays on art and poetry. In case of Heidegger, I think this strangeness and incomprehensibilty comes from his use of language which is intrinsically linked to his philosophy. The way we use language assumes so many things unquestioningly... like when we say "This is a rock" or "I am a man" even these simple statements already assume an idea of "how things are" which may or may not be valid. That's why he uses so many circuitous words and neologisms.

I liked this passage because this idea of death being constantly present in our everyday life...and death being personal and unique for all human beings seemed very interesting to me.

Kubla Khan said...

Thanks for understanding the context in which i wrote.

btw, which translation of Alexanderplatz have you read? is there only one? the one i have started, from continuum publishing, is just such a drag......

and....have you watched Querelle? i have read it but was wondering......

Alok said...

Yeah, I have the same edition and found it plodding as well. I left after around 100 pages. Ian Buruma in his essay in new york review said that this translation is barely adequate and called for adventurous translators and publishers to tackle it, though he was pessimistic about the success of the project. It is actually amazing how much of the book Fassbinder manages to bring inside his film, I mean not just events but actual text from the book, through monologues, onscreen text and narration. His film is not just an adaptation but is also an act of "reading" the book.

I haven't read the Genet book or seen Querelle either but will do sometime.