In this post, I will briefly sketch Marcel’s concept of participation.
Gabriel Marcel’s concept of participation is central to his philosophy of personalism and existentialism. According to Marcel, participation refers to the experience of being involved and engaged in the world, as opposed to being detached and alienated from it. In this sense, participation is a way of being in the world that involves a sense of connection, responsibility, and engagement.
Marcel emphasizes the importance of participation in a number of different contexts, including relationships, community, and spiritual life. In each of these contexts, he argues that participation involves a sense of commitment and engagement, as well as a willingness to be vulnerable and open to others.
One important aspect of Marcel’s concept of participation is his emphasis on relationality. According to Marcel, human beings are fundamentally relational beings, and our experiences of the world are shaped by our relationships with others. In this sense, participation involves a sense of connection and engagement with others, as well as a willingness to be influenced and shaped by them.
Marcel also emphasizes the importance of participation in community. For Marcel, community is not simply a collection of individuals, but rather a shared way of life that is characterized by mutual support and engagement. In this sense, participation in community involves a sense of responsibility and commitment to the well-being of others, as well as a willingness to share in their joys and sorrows.
Finally, Marcel’s concept of participation has important implications for spiritual life. According to Marcel, spiritual life involves a sense of connection with a transcendent reality that is beyond our immediate experience. In this sense, participation in spiritual life involves a willingness to be open to the mystery of existence, and a commitment to living in accordance with our deepest values and beliefs.
Overall, Marcel’s concept of participation emphasizes the importance of engagement and connection in our lives. It highlights the importance of relationality, community, and spiritual life, and suggests that these aspects of life are essential for a meaningful and fulfilling existence. By emphasizing the importance of participation, Marcel offers a powerful critique of modern society, which he sees as characterized by detachment, alienation, and individualism.
However, Marcel’s concept of participation also raises a number of important questions and challenges. For example, it can be difficult to balance the need for engagement and connection with the need for personal autonomy and individuality. Additionally, Marcel’s emphasis on relationality and community can be criticized for neglecting the importance of diversity and difference, and for failing to address the challenges of conflict and disagreement that can arise in these contexts.
Furthermore, while Marcel’s concept of participation emphasizes the importance of engagement and connection, it is not always clear how these ideals can be realized in practice. For example, in a world that is marked by social inequality and injustice, it can be difficult for individuals to fully participate and engage in their communities and society at large. Similarly, in a world that is characterized by violence and conflict, it can be difficult to find meaningful connections and relationships with others.
Despite these challenges, however, Marcel’s concept of participation remains a powerful and inspiring ideal. By emphasizing the importance of engagement, connection, and commitment, Marcel offers a vision of a more meaningful and fulfilling way of life. While the challenges of realizing this vision should not be underestimated, Marcel’s concept of participation offers a powerful critique of modern society, and a compelling vision of a more engaged and connected future.
Gabriel Marcel’s concept of freedom is a central aspect of his philosophy, which explores the nature of human existence and the search for meaning and transcendence. Marcel argues that freedom is a fundamental aspect of human existence, but that it is often misunderstood and distorted in modern society. In this essay, I will explore Marcel’s concept of freedom, and how it contributes to his philosophy of human existence.
Marcel argues that freedom is not simply the absence of constraints or limitations, but rather the positive capacity to create and shape our own lives. Freedom is not something that we possess as individuals, but rather something that emerges in our relationships with others and the world around us. It is a creative, dynamic process that involves a constant negotiation between our own desires and the demands of the world.
Marcel distinguishes between two different kinds of freedom: negative freedom and positive freedom. Negative freedom refers to the absence of external constraints or limitations on our actions. It is the freedom to do what we want, without interference from others. Positive freedom, on the other hand, refers to the capacity to shape and create our own lives. It is the freedom to realize our own potential and to create something new in the world.
According to Marcel, modern society tends to emphasize negative freedom at the expense of positive freedom. We are taught to value individual autonomy and independence, and to view the world as a collection of separate, isolated individuals. This leads to a narrow, self-centered understanding of freedom that is focused on the individual’s ability to do what they want, rather than on their capacity to create something new and meaningful in the world.
Marcel argues that this narrow understanding of freedom leads to a sense of alienation and disconnection from the world. We become focused on our own desires and needs, and lose sight of the larger context in which our lives are embedded. We become isolated from others and the world, and lose the sense of connection and belonging that is necessary for a fulfilling life.
Marcel suggests that a deeper understanding of freedom requires us to recognize our interconnectedness with others and the world. We are not isolated individuals, but rather social beings who are shaped and influenced by our relationships with others. Our freedom is intimately connected to our relationships with others, and it emerges in the context of these relationships.
Marcel also argues that freedom is closely connected to our sense of responsibility. If we are truly free, then we are responsible for the choices we make and the actions we take. We cannot simply do what we want without regard for the consequences of our actions. Our freedom is a responsibility, and it requires us to act in accordance with our values and our sense of purpose.
Marcel’s concept of freedom has important implications for a number of different fields, including politics, ethics, and psychology. In politics, Marcel’s work has been influential in the development of communitarianism, which emphasizes the importance of social connections and community in creating a meaningful and fulfilling life. In ethics, Marcel’s work has been influential in the development of virtue ethics, which emphasizes the importance of cultivating the qualities and dispositions that allow us to act in accordance with our values and our sense of purpose. In psychology, Marcel’s work has been influential in the development of humanistic psychology, which emphasizes the importance of personal growth and self-actualization.
One of the key strengths of Marcel’s concept of freedom is its emphasis on the creative and dynamic nature of freedom. Marcel does not see freedom as a fixed or static property that individuals possess, but rather as a process of becoming and creating. Freedom is not something that we have or don’t have, but rather something that emerges in our interactions with others and the world around us.
While Marcel’s concept of freedom emphasizes the importance of positive freedom and the creative process of becoming, it can be argued that his emphasis on individual agency and creativity neglects the role of structural constraints and systemic inequalities that limit people’s capacity to shape their lives.
Marcel’s emphasis on individual agency and creativity can be seen as a reflection of his broader philosophical perspective, which emphasizes the importance of personal relationships and the search for meaning and transcendence. However, this emphasis on individual agency can lead to a neglect of structural factors such as social inequality, discrimination, and power relations that shape people’s opportunities and life chances.
Furthermore, Marcel’s concept of freedom does not offer a clear framework for addressing these structural factors. While he emphasizes the importance of responsibility and acting in accordance with one’s values and sense of purpose, it is not clear how this can be achieved in the face of systemic constraints and social inequalities.
In addition, Marcel’s emphasis on positive freedom can be criticized for neglecting the importance of negative freedom, which refers to the absence of external constraints or limitations on our actions. While Marcel argues that negative freedom is often overemphasized in modern society, it is still an important aspect of freedom that cannot be overlooked.
Finally, it can be argued that Marcel’s concept of freedom is somewhat idealistic and detached from the practical realities of everyday life. While his emphasis on creativity and personal growth is inspiring, it is not clear how these ideals can be realized in a world that is marked by political, economic, and social challenges. It is important to recognize the limitations and constraints that exist in the world, while still striving towards a more meaningful and fulfilling life.
In this post, I will discuss very briefly Gabriel Marcel’s concept of primary and secondary reflections.
Gabriel Marcel’s concept of primary and secondary reflection is a key aspect of his philosophy, which explores the nature of human existence and the search for meaning and transcendence. Marcel argues that primary and secondary reflection are two different ways of experiencing the world, and that each has its own strengths and limitations. In this essay, I will explore Marcel’s concept of primary and secondary reflection, and how it contributes to his philosophy of human existence.
Primary reflection refers to our immediate, pre-reflective experience of the world. It is an unmediated experience of reality that involves a direct encounter with the world around us. Primary reflection is a way of experiencing the world that is characterized by immediacy, presence, and intimacy. It involves a direct connection with the world, without the interference of language, concepts, or ideas. Primary reflection is the mode of experience that is most closely connected to our embodied, lived experience of the world.
Secondary reflection, on the other hand, refers to our reflective, conceptual understanding of the world. It is a mediated experience of reality that involves the use of language, concepts, and ideas. Secondary reflection involves a detachment from the world, as we seek to understand it from a more objective and analytical perspective. It is the mode of experience that is most closely connected to our rational, cognitive understanding of the world.
Marcel argues that both primary and secondary reflection are important aspects of our experience of the world, and that they are both necessary for a full understanding of human existence. However, he also believes that each mode of reflection has its own limitations and strengths, and that they need to be used in balance with one another in order to gain a fuller understanding of the world.
One of the limitations of primary reflection, according to Marcel, is that it can be limited by our subjective experience of the world. Primary reflection involves an immediate, unmediated encounter with the world, but this encounter is always filtered through our subjective experience and perspective. We can never fully escape our own subjectivity, and this can limit our ability to understand the world objectively.
Secondary reflection, on the other hand, can be limited by its detachment from the world. When we use language, concepts, and ideas to understand the world, we are necessarily abstracting from the immediate, lived experience of reality. We are constructing a representation of the world, rather than experiencing it directly. This can limit our ability to connect with the world in a direct, immediate way.
Marcel believes that primary and secondary reflection need to be used in balance with one another in order to gain a fuller understanding of human existence. He argues that primary reflection provides us with a direct, immediate connection to the world, while secondary reflection provides us with a more objective and analytical understanding of the world. By using both modes of reflection, we can gain a fuller understanding of the world that takes into account both our subjective experience and our objective understanding.
Marcel also argues that primary and secondary reflection are closely connected to our sense of self and our experience of other people. Primary reflection is closely connected to our embodied, lived experience of the world, and it is through primary reflection that we connect with other people on a deep, intimate level. Secondary reflection, on the other hand, allows us to understand other people from a more objective and analytical perspective. By using both modes of reflection, we can gain a fuller understanding of ourselves and our relationships with others.
In this post, I will briefly sketch Marcel’s concept of creative fidelity.
Gabriel Marcel’s concept of creative fidelity is a central idea in his philosophy, which emphasizes the importance of personal relationships and the search for meaning and transcendence in human existence. Marcel argues that creative fidelity is an essential aspect of human existence, as it involves the commitment to something beyond oneself and the willingness to engage in a creative and transformative process of discovery and self-transcendence.
At its core, creative fidelity is a process of ongoing discovery and self-transcendence, which involves a commitment to a particular person, idea, or value. This commitment is not fixed or static, but is constantly evolving and changing as the individual engages in a process of discovery and self-transformation. Marcel argues that this process of creative fidelity is essential for human existence, as it allows individuals to transcend their limited perspective and connect with something beyond themselves.
Marcel’s concept of creative fidelity is closely connected to his ideas about personal relationships and the importance of community. Marcel argues that personal relationships are essential for human existence, as they allow individuals to connect with something beyond themselves and engage in a process of self-transcendence. Marcel believes that personal relationships involve a commitment to another person, which involves a willingness to engage in a process of creative fidelity and transformation.
Marcel’s concept of creative fidelity is also relevant to his critique of the modern world, which he sees as characterized by a loss of community and personal relationships. Marcel argues that the modern world is too focused on the idea of having, which has led to a neglect of the importance of being and personal relationships. Marcel believes that creative fidelity is essential for the renewal of personal relationships and the restoration of community in the modern world.
Marcel’s approach to creative fidelity is closely connected to his Catholic faith, which emphasizes the importance of personal relationships and the search for meaning and transcendence in human existence. Marcel sees creative fidelity as a way of connecting with the divine, which involves a willingness to engage in a process of self-transcendence and discovery.
Marcel’s concept of creative fidelity can be seen as a response to the existentialist philosophy of his time, which emphasized the importance of individual freedom and choice. Marcel argues that creative fidelity involves a commitment to something beyond oneself, which is essential for human existence. Marcel believes that the existentialist emphasis on individual freedom and choice is too narrow and individualistic, and neglects the importance of personal relationships and community.
Marcel’s concept of creative fidelity has also been influential in contemporary philosophy and theology. Marcel’s emphasis on the importance of personal relationships and the search for meaning and transcendence has influenced the development of relational and dialogical approaches to philosophy and theology. Marcel’s emphasis on the importance of personal relationships and the commitment to something beyond oneself has also been influential in the development of contemporary spirituality and mindfulness practices.
In conclusion, Gabriel Marcel’s concept of creative fidelity is a central idea in his philosophy, which emphasizes the importance of personal relationships and the search for meaning and transcendence in human existence. Marcel argues that creative fidelity is an essential aspect of human existence, as it involves a commitment to something beyond oneself and the willingness to engage in a creative and transformative process of discovery and self-transcendence. Marcel’s concept of creative fidelity is closely connected to his Catholic faith, and his work remains influential today in the context of contemporary debates about personal relationships, community, and spirituality.
I this post, I will briefly sketch Marcel’s concept of being and having.
Gabriel Marcel’s “Being and Having” is a philosophical work that explores the relationship between being and having in human existence. Marcel argues that the modern world has become obsessed with the idea of having, which has led to a neglect of the importance of being. Marcel believes that this focus on having has resulted in a loss of the sense of community and personal relationships that are essential for human existence.
Marcel begins by exploring the concept of having, which he sees as a product of the modern world. Having is associated with possessions, wealth, and power, and it is seen as the key to happiness and success. Marcel argues that this emphasis on having has led to a neglect of the importance of being, which is related to personal relationships, community, and the transcendent.
Marcel believes that being is essential for human existence, as it is related to personal relationships and the sense of community. Being is not something that can be possessed or acquired, but it is something that must be lived and experienced. Marcel argues that the modern world has lost sight of the importance of being, which has led to a loss of community and personal relationships.
Marcel’s critique of the modern world is closely connected to his Catholic faith. Marcel sees the loss of community and personal relationships as a symptom of the secularization of society, which has led to a neglect of the spiritual dimension of human existence. Marcel argues that human beings are not just material beings, but are also spiritual beings who need to connect with something beyond themselves in order to find meaning and purpose in life.
Marcel’s approach to the relationship between being and having is also related to his critique of capitalism. Marcel argues that capitalism is based on the idea of having, and that it encourages individuals to see themselves as consumers rather than as human beings with a spiritual dimension. Marcel believes that capitalism is responsible for the loss of community and personal relationships, as it encourages individuals to pursue their own self-interest at the expense of others.
Marcel’s approach to the relationship between being and having is also relevant to contemporary debates in philosophy. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in relational and dialogical approaches to philosophy, which emphasize the importance of relationships and dialogue in human existence. Marcel’s work can be seen as a precursor to this approach, and his emphasis on the importance of personal relationships and community remains relevant today.
In conclusion, Gabriel Marcel’s “Being and Having” is a thought-provoking work that explores the relationship between being and having in human existence. Marcel argues that the modern world has become too focused on the idea of having, which has led to a neglect of the importance of being. Marcel believes that being is essential for human existence, as it is related to personal relationships, community, and the transcendent. Marcel’s critique of the modern world is closely connected to his Catholic faith, and his work remains relevant today in the context of contemporary debates about the importance of personal relationships and community in human existence.
Jean-Paul Sartre’s concept of bad faith is an essential aspect of his existential philosophy. He describes bad faith as a form of self-deception that allows individuals to avoid the anxiety and responsibility that come with freedom. According to Sartre, individuals who engage in bad faith create a false image of themselves that allows them to believe that they are not free and, therefore, not responsible for their choices and actions.
Sartre argues that human beings are fundamentally free, and that this freedom is both a source of great potential and great anxiety. Freedom allows individuals to create their own meaning and purpose in life, but it also forces them to take responsibility for their choices and actions. This responsibility can be overwhelming, and many individuals try to avoid it by engaging in bad faith.
One common form of bad faith, according to Sartre, is the belief in determinism. Determinism is the idea that human beings are not truly free, but are instead controlled by outside forces such as genetics, environment, or fate. Sartre argues that determinism is a form of self-deception that allows individuals to avoid taking responsibility for their choices and actions. By believing that they are not truly free, individuals can convince themselves that they are not responsible for their actions.
Another form of bad faith that Sartre discusses is the belief in essentialism. Essentialism is the belief that individuals have a fixed, unchanging nature that determines their behavior and identity. Sartre argues that this belief is a form of self-deception because it denies the fundamental freedom of human beings. If individuals have a fixed nature, then they are not free to choose their own identity and purpose in life.
Sartre also discusses the role of social roles and expectations in bad faith. He argues that individuals often adopt social roles and identities that are not authentic to them, but that they believe are expected of them by society. For example, a woman may believe that she must be submissive and passive in order to be a good wife, even if this is not her true nature. By adopting these false identities, individuals can avoid taking responsibility for their actions, as they believe that they are simply following the expectations of society.
Sartre’s concept of bad faith has important implications for ethics and morality. If individuals are fundamentally free, then they are responsible for their choices and actions. This means that there can be no external standards of morality or ethics that individuals can rely on to determine the right course of action. Instead, individuals must create their own values and morality based on their own freedom and responsibility.
Sartre’s concept of bad faith is also important in understanding the nature of authenticity. Authenticity is the idea that individuals should strive to be true to themselves and their own nature. Sartre argues that bad faith is a form of inauthenticity because it involves creating a false image of oneself in order to avoid the anxiety and responsibility of freedom. To be authentic, individuals must be willing to accept the anxiety and responsibility that comes with freedom.
In conclusion, Jean-Paul Sartre’s concept of bad faith is an essential aspect of his existential philosophy. Bad faith is a form of self-deception that allows individuals to avoid the anxiety and responsibility that come with freedom. By creating a false image of themselves, individuals can convince themselves that they are not truly free and, therefore, not responsible for their choices and actions. Sartre argues that individuals must strive to be authentic by accepting the anxiety and responsibility of freedom and creating their own values and morality based on their own nature.
In these notes, I will briefly sketch the key concepts of Martin Heidegger’s existential philosophy. However, it must be noted that Heidegger is a huge philosopher and difficult to understand. Thus, I will only present the key concepts of his existential philosophy.
To begin with, it is important to note that Heidegger offers a new conception of philosophy, which, according to some scholars, such as Werner Marx, aims ultimately to attain a “second beginning” at this late stage (20th century) of human development. Thus, Heidegger’s effort must be seen as composing in a new different way the question concerning the “Essence of Being”, and, at one with this, articulating the “Essence of Man”. It appears therefore that Heidegger’s main intention in rekindling the question concerning the “Essence of Being” is to really articulate the essence and meaning of being human.
Why the “second beginning” of philosophy and the task of composing anew the “Essence of Being” and the “Essence of Man”?
For Heidegger, this question has long been stalemated and yet the question of Being, that is, the Essence of Being and the Essence of Man, remains the original question. Indeed, it is the “first” question concerning the meaning of our own Being (that is, the meaning of being human) vis-à-vis the meaning of Being (that is, Being in general or the entirety of Nature).
The attempt to rekindle the question of Being implies for Heidegger not only a “going back” (that is, remembering) to the original question and appropriating what this serious question itself had revealed to human beings (Dasein), but also a “going back” to those thinkers who first raised the question concerning the Being of beings, that is, the pre-Socratics. In other words, for Heidegger, if we want to understand the essence of Being, then we need to revisit the pre-Socratic philosophers and know what they said about “Being”.
As is well known, the pre-Socratics were the first to raise the question concerning the Essence of Being and of Man. Thus, they were referred to as the “first philosophers”. With this, they were said to have set the “first beginning” of philosophy.
We must note, however, that the term “pre-Socratics” does not refer only to the set of philosophers from Thales to the Sophists (for example, Protagoras, Gorgias, and Thracymachus), but also to the philomythoi (that is, the lovers of myth, like Hesiod and Homer), as Aristotle would call them. Thus, in this context, philosophy could be said to have begun with the philomythoi and the pre-Socratics. Let me briefly explain the difference between the philomythoi and the Pre-Socratics’ way of philosophizing.
On the one hand, the philomythoi addressed the question concerning Being through their mythical songs. According to Werner Marx, through the mythical songs of the philomythoi, the great and terrifying powers that formed and ruled the cosmos came to light and shone forth in the brilliance of the beautiful and the terror of the numinous. In other words, the philomythoi explained the meaning of Being (that is, the entirety of Nature) through mythical songs and poems.
If it helps, we have to remember that the ancient people (the philomythoi and the Pre-Socratics in this case) found the cosmos or Nature to be mysterious. For example, it’s difficult for the ancient people to make sense of darkness, lightning, the four seasons, the, and the like. But as records show, they attempted to explain the mysteriousness of these phenomena, and, in doing so, the philomythoi used their mythical songs and poems. Concrete example to this is the Genesis (the first part of the Bible). As we know, the authors of the Genesis explained the origin and development of the world through myth.
It is interesting to note that during this time, “myth” is the best available method in explaining the mysteriousness of the world.
It is also important to note that in and through the simplicity and immediacy of the speech (saying and singing) of the philomythoi, a whole meaningful order arose out of the darkness that had shrouded all-that-is (Being). In other words, it is through their mythical songs and poems that the philomythoi was able to make sense of the mysteriousness of the world.
Lastly, the philomythoi in awe and wonder felt themselves as simply servants or instruments or and voices of the powers about which they sang. In other words, the philomythoi believed that they were simply “recipients” of thoughts or knowledge, that they did not invent thoughts; instead, thoughts or knowledge were simply revealed to them. As we can see later, this is the basis of Heidegger’s famous line “we do not come to thoughts; thoughts come to us”.
The pre-Socratics, on the other hand, addressed the question concerning Being through reason. Hence, it was with the pre-Socratics that reason was first used in in thinking of the mysteriousness of the world. For Heidegger, the thinking of the pre-Socratics was simple, immediate, and poetic (that is, creative). Hence, for Heidegger, the thinking of the pre-Socratics is a thinking of and toward that which enables, empowers, and forms all-that-is, that is, the thinking of and toward the logos or underlying principle of the world.
Like the philomythoi, the pre-Socratic thinkers felt themselves as servants, instruments, and voices of that power they deserved most―that is, of Nous, the light-giving Reason.
Blessed with Nous (light-giving Reason), the pre-Socratic thinkers were gifted with noises, that is, the capacity to apprehend intuitively and, thereby, to bring the meaning of Reason into the fullness of its light. And through these elucidations, the cosmos become more lucid.
Now, it must be noted that the pre-Socratics did not try to elucidate the various meanings of all the many “particular beings”. Instead, they tried to understand the meaning of Being holistically. Hence, the pre-Socratics most of all attempted to understand the entirety of Nature through the conception of the phenomenal elementary powers of Nature―the elements of water, fire, air, and earth. And in doing so, the pre-Socratics attempted to let emerge that which held all these elements together and empowered them: namely, physis―that is, the natureness of Nature.
For the pre-Socratics, physis is the great unifying mother and is conceived as Eon or “to einai”, that is, Being or “to be”. This is because the way physis unfolds itself was seen by the pre-Socratics as the way Being unfolds itself, or the way Being allows the physei onta, the natural beings, to “be” or “not be”. In this way, physis is understood as that which allows Being to make itself appear, but in the act of “appearing” Being passes again into darkness of their past. Again, as we can see later, this is the basis of Heidegger’s famous claim that the moment Being reveals itself, it automatically withdraws itself.
Indeed, in their “philosophizing poems”, the pre-Socratics elucidated poetically a certain “Essence of Being”, and at one with the Essence of Being, the Essence of Man was poetically composed as that natural being that can think the Essence of Being. Put differently, as Martin Heidegger sees it, through the thinking of the pre-Socratics we are therefore able to make sense of the mysteriousness of Nature; and part of this understanding is the realization that indeed man (which Heidegger calls Dasein) has the capability of understanding reality.
The discussion above indeed provides the context of Heidegger’s existential philosophy and the reason why Heidegger appropriated the “thinking” of the pre-Socratics in making sense of the meaning of Being. As Werner Marx writes:
“It is therefore not surprising to find in analyzing the writings of Heidegger that his new conception of philosophy seems to demand that the self-understanding of the philosopher be changed to the kind of self-understanding which the pre-Socratics had, that is, that the new philosopher feel himself again as intermediary, instrument, and voice and the style of philosophizing again become simple, immediate, and poetic like the singing and thinking of the pre-Socratics. And finally,
Heidegger―as the first thinkers did―now sees the foremost task or subject matter of philosophy not as the explanation of the meaning of “particular beings”, but as the elucidation, articulation, and poetic composition of a new Essence of Being, and thereby of a new Essence of Man”. See Werner Marx, Heidegger and the Tradition (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1971).
The Metaphysics of Heidegger
At this point, I need to briefly present the key intuition of Heidegger’s brand of metaphysics because we cannot fully understand Heidegger’s existential philosophy without understanding the key intuition of his metaphysics.
It must be noted that Martin Heidegger rejects the whole enterprise of “metaphysics” in the traditional sense of this word where it indicates something eternal, infinite, and perfect. Heidegger’s metaphysics is a “finite metaphysics of finiteness”.
What Heidegger calls metaphysics, therefore, is bound up with the structure of man’s finite existence in the world. And so Heidegger proposes to understand man’s being in particular and Being in general within the horizon of Time. Thus, the idea of going beyond Time and coming back to Time (i.e., Transcendence) is a misunderstanding of Heidegger. Transcendence for Heidegger is Transcendence within immanence, that is to say, Transcendence within Time.
Again, the point of Heidegger’s metaphysics is that the meaning of Being in general and the meaning of man’s existence should be understood in the context of time. There is no outside of time for Heidegger. And this is one of the proper angles in understanding Heidegger’s existential philosophy.
Thus, for Heidegger, man (Dasein) transcends itself, but not toward a perfect Being (like God of Kierkegaard and Jaspers). Man transcends itself toward its own world, and nothing else. We can fully understand this concept once we have understood the key concepts of Heidegger’s existential philosophy.
Key Concepts in Heidegger’s Existential Philosophy
1) Facticity and Deliverance
The result of Heidegger’s inquiry into the meaning of Being (that is, existential phenomenology) is that Dasein is being-there-in-the-world and that it has come to be in the world through “deliverance”―“thrownness,” to use Heidegger’s word. As Heidegger says, Dasein is “thrown” into the world and that being-in-the-world is a “thrownness”.
Heidegger writes:
“This characteristic of Dasein’s Being – this ‘that it is’ – is veiled in its ‘whence’ and ‘whither’, yet disclosed in itself all the more unveiledly; we call it the ‘thrownness’ of this entity into its ‘there’; indeed, it is thrown in such a way that, as Being-in-the-world, it is the ‘there’. The expression ‘thrownness’ is meant to suggest the facticity of its being delivered over.”
For Heidegger, this “thrownness” into the world necessarily implies that Dasein always exists with other entities in the world and, hence, as a being with-others-in-the-world, Dasein is entirely submerged in the immediate care and concern of the everyday world into which it is thrown. Evidently, being with-others-in-the-world suggests that the existence of Dasein in the world is an existence with the “they” (das Man) or the anonymous anyone. Thus, when Heidegger says that Dasein is submerged in the immediate care and concern of the everyday world into which it is thrown, this means that Dasein is constantly related to other human beings in the form of concern and care.
As a thrown being, Dasein is not simply extant (vorhanden or present-at-hand) like a stone, nor Dasein is determined by an alien purpose (zuhanden or ready-to-hand) like a hammer which is what it is as something “to hammer with” and which only man can handle.
In contradistinction from these two other ways of being, the merely extant (vorhanden) and the functional being (zuhanden), man (Dasein) has the privilege of being in such a way that he is thrust upon himself, and yet owns his own existence. And unlike all other beings, man is so constituted that through most of his actions, he stands in some awareness of his being, of “that and how he is”. This means that man (Dasein) is conscious not only of the things around him, but also of his own existence.
For this reason, almost all of man’s act is an act in some awareness of the Essence of Being. In other words, for Heidegger, the awareness of one’s being (that is, self-consciousness) is also at the same time an awareness of the Essence of Being (or Essence of Reality). In fact, Heidegger believes that man is so constituted that he is “open” not only for his own Being (the character and meanings of his own existing) but also for the Being of other human and non-human “particular beings”.
2) Overtness and World:
The idea that man (Dasein) is open to the Essence of Being (i.e., his own Being and the Being of other beings) gives way to the concept of “overtness” as one of the conditions of the possibility of truly existing as a human being.
But what is “overtness” and how does man make himself open to the Essence of Being?
Heidegger understands “overtness” as “consciousness”, but he avoids using the term not only because of its Cartesian implications, but because it prevents us from realizing that each individual lucidity or overtness is part and parcel of a wide and general overtness, of an elementary sort of Truth. Thus, “overtness” as consciousness simply refers to the “manifestness” of Being or things. Thus, for Heidegger, this “overtness” is an a priori condition for any so-called subject-object relationships.
Thus, for Heidegger, no subject could refer itself to an object, no act of experiential knowledge about an object could take place, and no statement or judgment could be arrived at about an object, if such prior statement of manifestness had not come about, embracing both subject and object.
Now, again, how does man make himself open to the Essence of Being?
First, we need to note that for Heidegger man (Dasein) is gifted with understanding, mood, and speech. But for Heidegger, these gifts are not gifts from someone, say, God. In fact, Heidegger hardly believes in God. Heidegger simply calls these gifts as “existential givens”. They were there the moment man was born.
According to Heidegger, in and through these existential givens, man discloses or illuminates himself. This is because, with these existential givens, man (Dasein) can understand, feel (mood), and articulate (speech). Hence, through these existential givens, overtness is brought into the fore, and man (Dasein) is able to understand himself and the things around him.
Lastly, with overtness, it is therefore possible for man (Dasein) to become truly himself, to truly exist as a human being.
In addition to overtness, Heidegger introduced the concept of “world” as another important condition of the “possibility” of truly existing as a human being.
For Heidegger, “world” refers to that which constitutes the unity of significances, that is, the context of meanings in which man moves. Thus, “world” for Heidegger is not a blind mass of things (or the totality of nature), but an existential structure that defines or constitutes man’s way of Being. Put simply, “world” for Heidegger could refer to a socio-cultural “context” upon which man draws meaning or that which shapes one’s behavior. For example, consider the phrase “The Germans’ way of doing things” or “The Americans’ way of doing things”. For sure, the Germans or the Americans have their specific way of doing things because they have been defined by their own context. Hence, it is unnatural for the Germans to do the Americans way of doing things because they it’s outside of their own context.
For Heidegger, man refers to this context of intersubjective meanings because he is always already within and amidst “beings” and moves around them with ease and familiarity.
Thus, for Heidegger, it is in and through the “world” that man projects and charts his own life for pragmatic reasons, but does so within this context of meanings and always guided by it.
In this sense, we can infer that man is determined by “world” and, therefore, on this ground alone, it is quite wrong to assert that Heidegger has conceived of a man as “sovereign” or a self-creator.
Now, the two notions of “overtness” and “world” constitute man as an entity that stands in an intimate and immediate awareness of Being in its character and meanings. Only when “overtness” and “world” occur can all-that-is (Essence of Being) and particular beings (ontic) be encountered as “be-ings”. It is only through “overtness” and “world” therefore that the “unconcealment of Being” becomes possible.
3) The Problem of Authenticity and Inauthenticity
In the previous discussion, we learned that through “overtness” and “world” man can gain a high degree of understanding of itself and the things around him, and, thereby, experience his true Being, that of others and of his things.
However, man in his everyday life fails to realize that his mood, understanding and speech are “necessary ways of Being”. This is due to the fact that man’s thrownness into the world implies deliverance or “fallenness”.
Man’s failure to realize that his mood, understanding and speech are “necessary ways of Being” suggests that man is “lost” in the world. For Heidegger, this “lostness”or “fallenness” in the world means that it is now the world that prescribes the path for man of which he succumbed (surrendered) his creative abilities to worldly things. This is exactly characterizes Heidegger’s notion of “inauthenticity” or an inauthentic or meaningless existence.
Hence, inauthenticity for Heidegger means being not free because we let others (das Man) decide for ourselves. Indeed, inauthenticity means not owning one’s own existence.
Now, in order for man (Dasein) to be authentic, therefore, it has to own its existence again, that it has to regain its existence that is lost in the “they”. And for Heidegger, this implies that Dasein has to gain somehow full awareness of the significance of what it means “to be”, of what it means to be a self with others and objects in the world.
If inauthenticity is understood as the fallenness of Dasein into the “world”, and if authenticity means full awareness of what it means to be a self with others and objects in the world, then this implies a “becoming” or the realization of Dasein’s possibilities. For Heidegger, such realization of Dasein’s possibilities occurs through the experience of angst which mobilizes other key categories, such as, death, conscience, and decidedness.
Heidegger understands angst as the authentic sensibility that discloses Dasein’s finite existence in the world. This disclosure allows Dasein to understand itself as a finite being thrown toward its own-most possibility, which is death. Through death, understood as the paradoxical possibility of no-longer-being-able-to-be-there, Dasein is thrown back onto its own resources. This movement then discloses Dasein as an individual self thrown into the world, whose task in the world is to exist as itself, that is to say, to be authentic. For Heidegger, therefore, death is the ultimate basis of authenticity.
For Heidegger, the categories of conscience and decidedness answer the question concerning the possibility of authentic existence. Heidegger understands conscience as the inner voice within Dasein itself that calls Dasein to “come back to itself and seize the authentic possibility of truly being itself”. Conscience appears to be an “ought” on the part of Dasein to own his existence again. Once Dasein heeds the call of conscience, decidedness ensues. Authenticity, therefore, as the full awareness of the significance of what it means to be a self also means an “awareness of one’s own-most possibilities and the firm resolve to realize them in the future.” Authenticity is thus tied to one’s possibilities and to possible future ways of being. For Heidegger, this makes manifest the “temporal” axis of existential phenomenology─Dasein is in the present, indebted to the past, and oriented toward the future (death). Indeed, the threefold structure of care turns out to be also the structure of existence: the human being is a being in time.
However, for Heidegger, authenticity requires a kind of mood, understanding, and speech that are attuned to the Essence of Being, and this is possible in the “thinking of the philosopher”. And man as Dasein and as thinker will realize that his thinking is a way of Being, that the Essence of Being unfolds in it, and that he is therefore a necessary instrument, that he is needed for the articulation of the Essence of Being.
Heidegger, however, believes that Aristotle and the philosophers after him failed to think about the Essence of Being because they had only articulated the meaning of “particular beings”. Because of this, Heidegger believes, philosophers hitherto could not realize themselves as Dasein, as authentic beings.
This is precisely the reason why Heidegger calls for a second beginning of philosophy. And for Heidegger, this is the new task of philosophy: to think of Being holistically.
But what is the character of this new philosophizing?
Heidegger calls this andenken, which means a thinking “toward and of”, and in this sense a “remembering” kind of thinking―remembering because the moment Being reveals itself, it automatically withdraws itself.
But toward what and of what? In other words, what is the subject matter of this kind of thinking?
According to Heidegger, man should think toward and of the Essence of Being and of the Essence of Man. This is what we meant attuning oneself to Being. And as we already know, it is only when we attuned ourselves to Being that we become ready of the unconcealment of Being and our eventual appropriation of that which is unconcealed by Being. As Heidegger formulates it: “Being commands and directs the thinker”, or “Being claims the thinking of the thinker so that it thereby may conceal itself in its truth”. This is what Heidegger calls “essential or meditative thinking” as opposed to “calculative or scientific thinking”.
On a final note, it must be remembered that Heidegger did not pretend to have solved the problem of Being. Toward the end of his magnum opus Being and Time, Heidegger says explicitly that its only purpose is to rekindle the question of Being and to bring into motion what has become stalemated. In fact, Heidegger concludes this work not with ready-made answers, but with a series of open questions.
Søren Kierkegaard’s philosophy revolves around the idea of existentialism or, as others would say, existential philosophy where individuals find meaning in their life through a leap of faith.
Søren Kierkegaard’s philosophy or brand of existentialism is first and foremost a reaction to Hegel’s speculative philosophy. As is well known, in Hegel’s system, what matters is the realization of the Absolute upon which the individual is merely subsumed in the entire process of the development of Reason. In other words, as we can see in Hegel’s seminal work The Phenomenology of Spirit, in the development of Reason, everything that happens (for example, world wars) is just a necessary part of history and individuals do not play an active role in it. In Kierkegaard’s interpretation, the individual’s existence is being left out and reduced to passivity in this process. With this, as Kierkegaard sees it, the individual is unfree. Her life becomes meaningless.
As opposed to Hegel, what matters to Kierkegaard is concrete existence. It is important to note that the term existence for Kierkegaard is proper only to human beings. In fact, in existentialism, other entities, such as plants and animals, do not exist; they only “live”. This explains why for Kierkegaard, to exist means to strive, to consider alternatives, to choose, to decide, and most of all, to commit. As we can see, virtually all of this, as Kierkegaard may have argued, is not captured in Hegel’s system. This is precisely the reason why Kierkegaard rejected the system-building approach of Hegel and argued instead that the quest for truth involves personal choice, grounded in religious faith.
Kierkegaard also shared the conviction of the major philosophers reacting against Kant, Hegel, and the rest of the German Idealist (so famous during this time) that the 19th century European culture was terribly dysfunctional.
Furthermore, Kierkegaard also shared the argument that the individual will come to a proper understanding of human existence and society only when she radically breaks from the prevailing cultural attitudes.
But how can the individual truly exist? Or in what way can she attain authentic or meaningful existence?
According to Kierkegaard, authentic existence is attained when the individual realizes herself through the choice between alternatives and the subsequent self-commitment.
But how is self-realization possible?
According to Kierkegaard, self-realization can be attained through the three stages of life, namely, aesthetic stage, ethical stage, and religious stage. These three stages of life, which Kierkegaard calls “stages on life’s way”, involve a process whereby the true self or authentic existence is actualized in the form of individuality.
The Three Stages of Life according to Kierkegaard
Aesthetic Stage
According to Kierkegaard, the aesthetic stage is ruled by passion; it is indeed the realm of sensory experience and pleasure. As we can see, the aesthetic life for Kierkegaard is characterized by pleasure, and if one wants to live the aesthetic life to the fullest, she must maximize this pleasure.
The main goal of the aesthetic stage, therefore, is to satisfy one’s desires. Hedonism is a perfect example of this stage. And because the person in this stage is driven by desires only, according to Kierkegaard’s philosophy, she is not truly free. Even if she gets what she wants, such as food, drink, sex, and the like, still her life remains empty as her desires can never be fully satisfied. She needs more: more food, more drinks, more sex.
Kierkegaard acknowledges the importance of the aesthetic life. As a human flesh, we need to satisfy our physiological needs. However, because this stage lacks commitment to ideals, the aesthetic life will necessarily result in boredom, boredom not only with the activity but with self.
Boredom, according to Kierkegaard, is like a poison that flows through the veins of each individual, whether poor or rich no one escapes this “psychic-emotional state”. Boredom, therefore, plays an important role in Kierkegaard’s philosophy. This is because through boredom, the individual realizes that her desires can never be fully satisfied and, thus, she must change.
Now, according to Kierkegaard, when the individual experiences this situation, she is faced with a choice, that is, either she remains in the pursuit of sensual pleasures or to seek higher forms of pleasuresꟷ thus Kierkegaard’s work famous work Either/Or.
Ethical Stage
The ethical stage is the result of the individual’s decision to commit herself to the moral ideals of the society. Here, unlike the aesthetic stage, the individual considers the effects her actions will have on others and gives more emphasis on promoting social justice and equality.
For Kierkegaard, the primary goal of this stage is to live according to ethical standards, that is, to become an ethical person. Thus, the individual who lives in this stage takes responsibility for herself (including her choices and actions) and seeks to become what she ought to be. For this reason, the individual seeks to fulfill her duties and responsibilities related to her work, to her fellowmen, and the society as a whole. Thus, in the ethical stage, the self is no longer the center of everything as it was in the aesthetic stage. It is also in the ethical stage that the idea of “sacrifice” is introduced.
But there is a problem here.
Kierkegaard thought that the ethical individual will eventually reflect and realize that she does not always do what she ought to do―in fact, no one does. According to Kierkegaard, this eventually leads to the experience of guilt and despair.
In Kierkegaard’s philosophy, the experience of guilt and despair shows that the individual needs further change, and this is necessary if one wants to attain true fulfillment or a meaningful existence. As we can see, the individual cannot find real satisfaction in the ethics stage. In other words, one cannot find a meaningful existence in the ethical stage.
In response to this, according to Kierkegaard, the individual can either 1) simply try harder to do the right thing, that is, to be an ethical person, or 2) move to the third and final stage, through a leap of faith.
Religious Stage
According to Kierkegaard, as already mentioned above, we cannot find true fulfillment in the ethical stage. No matter how hard we try to be righteous, we always end up doing the wrong thing. Thus, again, we inevitably experience guilt and despair.
We know that the individual eventually becomes aware that she indeed cannot always do the right thing, but what is important in the ethical stage is that she accepts the fact that not doing the right thing is part of the nature of man―that we always commit mistakes, that we always commit sin.
Now, for Kierkegaard, it is only religion that can offer the possibility of a true fulfillment, of a meaningful or authentic existence. This is because, for Kierkegaard, it is only God’s forgiveness that can eradicate guilt and despair.
It must be noted, however, that the religious stage is not simply an alternative of the ethical. In fact, the ethical and religious stages may even be incompatible, for example, as to the demands of morality. The famous God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac is a typical example.
Issued without apparent justification or reason, this command goes against both the natural emotional ties of parental love and the basic moral principle of any conceivable human society. In its absoluteness and unconditionality, God’s commands mark the strict separation of the religious and the ethical spheres. As we can see, Abraham has faith and acts to obey God’s will, but in the end he is not required to sacrifice his son. For Kierkegaard then, we must believe even though faith violates human rationality, nature, and morality. This is because for Kierkegaard, a faith which conforms to moral intuition does not have any significance. Thus, it is the absurdity of religion that proves its unique value.
But why should humans believe in what they must find as irrational, unnatural and immoral?
This is exactly what Kierkegaard calls a “leap of faith”, which happens only when a choice in favor of faith has been made. Kierkegaard, however, emphasized that this choice or act of choosing must be based on SELF-CONSCIOUS and AUTHENTIC DECISION, rather than the effect of conformism.
This is what Kierkegaard calls inwardness or truth as subjectivity: when one becomes more of an individual through conscious choices and a full self-awareness before God.
Finally, the religious stage is where the individual finds true fulfillment and attains an authentic or meaningful existence, and, in Kierkegaard’s philosophy, this is made possible through a leap of faith.
