The appeal to people fallacy is a variation of the appeal to authority. It consists in arguing that some statement p is true because most people believe p. In other words, an appeal to people fallacy arises when one who, instead of concentrating on the relevant facts of the argument, gives more emphasis on the emotions and opinions of the people as the basis of her conclusion.
According to logicians, the fallacy of appeal to people is in effect an appeal to commonly or traditionally held beliefs.
This type of informal fallacy is commonly found in advertisements where products are recommended by asserting that “everyone uses it” or “a majority of the population use it”. Let us consider the example below.
“Budweiser is better than any other beer in the world because 90% of the Americans drink it.”
In the example above, one is arguing that Budweiser is the best beer in the world because many or almost all of the Americans drink it. Put differently, the unstated premise here is that the best-selling beer is the best beer, and the conclusion is that since we ought to buy the best beer, then we ought to buy Budweiser.
Obviously, this is not a sound or valid argument. The fact that 90% of the Americans drink Budweiser entails neither that Budweiser is the best nor we ought to drink one.
Just as in many other types of informal fallacy, what we notice in the appeal to people fallacy is that it lacks the necessary evidence that we can appropriate to prove that indeed that claim is true. Hence, in the example above, we ought to provide the proof for us to be able to conclude that Budweiser is the best beer in the world.
For example, we may say that 90% of the people in the world said that Budweiser tastes better than any other beer available in the market or it is proven that Budweiser contains more vitamins and minerals than any other beer available in the market.
In this way, it is logical to conclude that indeed, Budweiser is the best beer in the world.
Below are some of the examples of the fallacy of appeal to people.
Example 1:
Tide Ultra is better than Surf because many Filipinos used it.
Example 2:
Well, for centuries people have believed in God, and I just don’t see how so many people could be mistaken. So that’s why I choose to believe.
Example 3:
Working one’s way through college is a cherished American concept, according to Dr. Newman, former president of the University of Rhode Island.
To recognize the fallacy of appeal to people, we need only to look for an argument in which the conclusion is based on assertions about commonly or traditionally held beliefs. We may also look for solid evidence that can back up the claim; if there is none, then it is safe to conclude that the claim or argument is fallacious.
The fallacy of hasty generalization occurs when a generalization is formed on the basis of an unrepresentative sample. As we may already know, to be accurate, a generalization about a group should be based upon a sample that reflects the diversity of that group. One way of ensuring a representative sample, in some cases, is to select as large a sample as possible. The more people polled, for example, the more likely it is that the results truly represent the group. However, an accurate generalization does not necessarily require a large sample. In Gallup opinion polls, generalizations are typically based on surveys of a very small number of people. However, the pollsters are careful to select a typical or representative group of people for their sample. Let us consider the following examples below.
Example 1
I have surveyed twenty-five students―each from a different campus organization―out of a student body of two thousand, and all of them prefer to use the activity fund for a film series. So, probably the majority of all students would prefer a film series.
Example 2
I have spoken to the members of the campus Glee Club, and they prefer to use the activity fund for a film series on birds. So, probably a majority of the two thousand students would prefer a film series on birds.
As we can see, the arguer in the first example forms a generalization about the preferences of two thousand students on the basis of a sample drawn from various campus groups. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that this sample accurately reflects the diversity of opinion among the students. Thus, this generalization does not commit the fallacy of hasty generalization.
However, in the second example, the generalization is based solely upon a survey of one, rather select group, the members of the Glee Club. Although their preferences should be considered, it is not likely that their group is representative of the student body as a whole; neither is it a random sample of opinions. Hence, the generalization rests on an unrepresentative sample.
Let us consider another example. Columnist Ann Landers conducted an informal survey in which she asked her women readers to reply to this question: “Would you be content to be held close and treated tenderly and forget about “the act”? She reports that 100, 000 women responded, with 72 percent answering yes. Among the conclusions:
Example 3
The most surprising aspect of this survey was that 40 percent of the yes votes were from women under forty years of age. What does this say about the sexual revolution? It says, in the boudoir at least, it has been an abysmal failure.
Landers reports that 72, 000 women answered yes and that of that group, 42 percent, or 28, 800, were under forty years of age. She concludes that the sexual revolution “has been an abysmal failure” on the basis of the 28, 800 women under age forty who answered yes. Setting aside the problems with the survey questions itself and, in particular, the meaning of a yes answer, can we say that her sample of 28, 800 women is large enough to support a generalization about a majority of the nation’s approximately 2 million women under the age forty years? Although it is a significant sample, we may wonder whether it is indeed representative of the nation’s women under forty. Landers provide no further information about the makeup of the sample. We know only that it is composed of women forty years or under who read the survey and responded. Lacking such information we cannot conclude that is an accurate generalization, and we may suspect the fallacy of hasty generalization.
To identify the fallacy of hasty generalization, we need to look for a conclusion that generalizes over a group, and notice whether the basis for the generalization is both representative of the group and sufficiently large to justify the generalization; otherwise, a fallacy of hasty generalization may have been committed.
A false cause is a type of informal fallacy that arises when one assigns as the cause those facts that merely preceded or accompanied the effect when in fact there is no good evidence of a logical connection or causal relation. Hence, an arguer commits the fallacy of false cause when he labels something as the cause of something else on the basis of insufficient or unrepresentative evidence. Let us consider the example below.
Example 1
Statistics show that nearly every heroin user started by using marijuana. It is reasonable to conclude, then, that marijuana leads to the harder drug.
As we can see in the example above, the arguer claims that the majority of the heroin users tried marijuana before using heroin. This might be true; however, the arguer concludes that smoking marijuana will necessarily lead to the use of harder drugs, such as heroin. The conclusion is obviously illogical or fallacious because there is no strong proof or evidence that the use of marijuana will necessarily lead to the use of harder drugs.
Let us consider another example of the fallacy of false cause.
Example 2
Last night I was so angry at my brother that I wished he was dead. And now he is in the hospital. God, if only I had not thought that. It is all my fault. I will never feel hatred again, not of everyone!
If we analyze the example above, it is clear that it is a fallacious argument. Even though the person in the example simply regrets having had ill feelings toward his brother, we cannot logically conclude that his act of wishing his brother dead is the cause of his brother getting sick. Indeed, there is no good reason to believe in this case that wishing it so has caused it to be so.
The last example below will further illustrate the fallacy of false cause.
Example 3
I blame the television media for the epidemic of hijackings, kidnappings, and other acts of terrorism. If we would stop televising terrorist acts, they would stop.
In this example, the arguer is implying that televising terrorist acts causes more terrorist acts simply because it will encourage terrorists to do so. While it might be true that televising terrorist acts may contribute to terrorism by giving the terrorists the attention they seek for their cause, reason tells us that we cannot ultimately attribute the act of televising terrorist acts to the rise of terrorism. As a matter of fact, terrorism will not cease if the media stops televising terrorist acts.
A slippery slope is a type of informal fallacy that arises when the arguer claims that a chain of causal events will necessarily occur. Hence, a slippery slope is committed when a person argues that some event or practice he or she disapproves of will trigger a sequence of events that will ultimately lead to some undesirable consequences. The reasoning here is that since we do not want the undesirable consequence, we ought therefore to oppose the initial event or practice. The fallacy in the reasoning consists in the false assumption that the chain of events will in fact occur.
Let us consider the example below.
Example 1
You have all heard of grade inflation. Well, I want to speak to you about grade depression: the serious harm we do to students by grading them too hard rather than too easily. What does it do to students to measure them by too strict a standard? It frustrates them. It conditions them to expect failure. They recoil from responsibility, always taking the easy route rather than learning to challenge and, hence, improve themselves. They develop a habit of dependency, and many develop the symptoms of neurosis and other psychological disorders. Can we afford a generation of weak, dependent people unsuited for the demands of contemporary society?
As we can see in the example above, the arguer opposes a strict grading policy by claiming that it will ultimately lead to a generation of weak, dependent people. The first stage in the causal chain, that is, strict grading leads to frustrations, is perhaps reasonable. But from that point on, the series of events is unlikely. As a matter of fact, there is no good reason to believe that harsh grading will lead to an expectation of failures, withdrawal from responsibility, and eventually dependency and neurosis. For this reason, the arguer in the example above commits the fallacy of slippery slope.
Again, the slippery slope fallacy is committed when we accept without further justification or argument that once the first stage in the causal chain is taken, the others are going to follow.
It is important to note that there is another form of a slippery slope fallacy, which occurs when it is assumed without warrant that slight differences or differences of degrees are unimportant. Let us consider the example below.
Example 2
There is no point in sending money to aid starving children in Haiti because there are also starving children in West Papua, and it would be unjust not to aid them as well.
If we analyze the example above, it says that there is no need for us to help the starving children in Haiti because this action cannot make a difference. After all, there are countless starving children around the world, especially in West Papua. Moreover, the example above says that it would be unjust on the part of the starving children in West Papua if we only send aid money to the starving children in Haiti. Hence, the argument says that if we send aid money to the starving children in Haiti, then we need to send aid money as well to all starving children around the world. Again, when this argument occurs, a fallacy of slippery slope is committed.
The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a term or word switches meaning in the course of the argument, that is, when a term or word expresses one meaning in one premise and another meaning in another premise or conclusion.
Let us consider the example below.
Example 1
Philosophy is an art. But art is practiced by painters. Therefore, philosophy is also practiced by painters.
As we can see, the premises of the argument above are plausible, and the argument appears to be valid. However, the term “art” is used in two different senses. In the first premise, the term art refers to a skill that requires creativity, imagination and the ability to think critically, while in the second premise it refers to the “fine arts” or the cultural institution which involves the fine arts (that is, painters in the case of the example above.
It must be noted that although it may be true that painters practiced the fine arts, it is not necessarily true that they practiced all the skills that involved creativity, imagination and the ability to think critically.
Let us consider another example.
Example 2
Logic is the study of arguments. Well, that is one course that I could ace. I know all about arguments. I have learned from experts. You should hear the arguments my parents have.
As we can see in the argument above, the arguer may conclude, in effect, that he would do well in the study of arguments because he knows all about arguments. But it is important to note that the word “argument” here is being used in two different senses. In the first sense, it means “reasoning”, but in the second sense it means “quarreling”. If we substitute the two senses of the word “argument” here, then we are able to clarify what the arguer, in fact, had said: that he would do well in the study of “reasoning” because he knows all about quarreling. This, of course, does not follow.
The examples below will further illustrate the fallacy of equivocation.
Example 3
“Impartiality” means not taking sides in a dispute; I had hoped that the judge would be impartial, but he ruled against me.
Example 4
All stars are heavenly bodies. But Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are stars. Therefore, there is a good reason to believe that Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are heavenly bodies.
The fallacy of composition is a type of informal fallacy which occurs when the arguer mistakenly concludes that something is true to the whole simply because it is true to some of the parts of the whole. Put differently, in the fallacy of composition, the arguer assumes that the truth of the part of the whole necessarily affects the truth of the whole. Hence, what is assumed to be true to the part of the whole is necessarily true to the whole.
Let us consider the example below.
Example 1
De La Salle University is an excellent university. I know it because De La Salle’s College of Nursing consistently tops the board exams for nursing.
As we can see, the assumption of the argument above is that what is true of the part (that is, De La Salle University’s College of Nursing) is true of the whole (that is, the entire De La Salle University). However, it is obvious that the assumption is false. It is false because the excellent performance of De La Salle’s College of Nursing in the board exams for nursing does not necessarily imply that De La Salle University is an excellent institution of higher learning. It might be the case that De La Salle’s College of Engineering performs very poorly in the board exams for engineering.
The examples below will further illustrate the fallacy of composition.
Example 2
The pink sweater is gorgeous. The purple skirt over there is smashing. I love those red shoes in the window, and how about that terrific yellow vest on the mannequin! Let us face it, it will make a great outfit for you!
Example 3
Smoking this cigarette surely cannot harm me. So, how can smoking cigarettes harm me?
Example 4
All the angles of a triangle are less than 180 degrees. Therefore angles PQR, STU, and XYZ, which compose this triangle, are less than 180 degrees.
Example 5
If anything is good for an outstanding and crucial industry, such as the steel industry, then it would be good for the country as a whole.
The fallacy of division, also known as “false deduction”, is a type of informal fallacy which occurs when the arguer mistakenly concludes that something is true to one or some of the parts of the whole simply because it is true of the whole.
As we can see, the fallacy of division is the opposite of the fallacy of composition; as we may already know, the fallacy of composition is committed when the arguer erroneously assumes that something is true to the whole simply because it is true to some of the parts of the whole.
Let us consider the example below.
Example 1
One of the causes of poverty is laziness. Since 80 percent of the Filipino people are poor, then it can be logically argued that the Filipino people are lazy.
As we can see in the example above, the specific characteristic of the group as a whole (that is, the laziness of the Filipino people) is mistakenly attributed to all the members of the group (that is, the Filipino people are lazy). As the example illustrates, many Filipinos may have the characteristic of being lazy, which may be one of the causes of poverty. However, it is not safe to assume that the characteristic of being lazy is possessed by all the Filipino people taken individually. Thus, again, what is true of the whole is not necessarily true of the parts.
The examples below will further illustrate the nature and dynamics of the fallacy of division.
Example 2
The union voted to strike. Thus, every member of the union voted to strike.
Example 3
Humans are the only animals capable of philosophical thinking. Thus, every person is capable of philosophical thinking.
Example 4
Tomatoes are common in California. Therefore, since Los Angeles is in California, tomatoes are common in Los Angeles.
Example 5
The average beginning salary of college graduates with a major in nursing is USD 90, 000 per annum. Therefore, if I major in nursing, I can expect to begin at USD 90, 000.
An either/or fallacy, sometimes called false dichotomy, occurs when the arguer mistakenly reason from two alternatives, one claimed to be bad (that is, to be avoided) so that we ought to choose the other alternative. Put differently, an either/or fallacy consists of mistakenly assuming that there are only two possible solutions to some problem or that solving some problem consists of choosing between only two alternatives.
Thus, in either/or fallacy or false dichotomy, the argument develops by showing that one of the alternatives is false or unacceptable and then concludes that the other must be true.
Let us consider the example below.
Example 1
As I see it, either we enforce the death penalty or we eventually find the convicted murderer out on parole. We cannot have murderers going free, so we had better start enforcing the death penalty.
The example above has this from:
Either we enforce the death penalty or we eventually find the convicted murderer out on parole.
We cannot have murderers going free. Therefore, we must enforce the death penalty.
The form of the argument is as follows:
Either P or Q Not Q Therefore, P
If one is familiar with a disjunctive proposition in symbolic logic, one may notice that the argument above is a valid argument form. Hence, the either/or fallacy or false dichotomy does not consist in the use of an invalid argument form. Rather, it consists in a false premise, that is, the premise that says that there are only two alternatives available in addressing the problem or, as in the case of the example above, the death penalty or parole for murderers.
Let us consider another example.
Example 2
President George W. Bush: If you are not with us, then you are against us.
We heard this famous line of the former president of the United State George W. Bush during his war against the Al Qaida. In his attempt to force the governments in the world to support him, he argued that if they are not with him, they are against him. Of course, it does not always follow that if one is not in favor of a particular idea, then he is against it. For sure, if one nation is not on the side of President George W. Bush in his war against the Al Qaida, it does not necessarily follow that it is against Bush.
The following examples below will further illustrate the either/or fallacy or false dichotomy.
Example 3
Either we give in to these terrorists’ demands and jeopardize the lives of thousands of Americans or we refuse and risk the lives of the hostages. Well, I for one will not risk the lives of the Americans all over the world. So, we must not give in to these terrorists.
Example 4
The idea of deliberately causing trauma, deliberately injuring the head of a living baboon, is extremely distasteful. But if we are not allowed to continue this research, then we will simply not learn how to treat human beings with head injuries. It is unfortunate, but it must be done.
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.
