When Heidegger talks about "Being" is it related to the totality of all entities in a unity "Being"? That is, by analogy, is the Being in Heidegger something like "Para Brahman" (in Hindu Philosophy) or like some concept of God (sure, not anthropomorphic)?

  • I'm not sure I completely understand the question ... could you look carefully at the English? (I do think there's an interesting question here but am not entirely sure what's being asked) – virmaior May 26 '16 at 13:19
  • 1
    See Heidegger: "Consider some philosophical problems that will be familiar from introductory metaphysics classes: Does the table that I think I see before me exist? Does God exist? Does mind, conceived as an entity distinct from body, exist? These questions have the following form: does x (where x = some particular kind of thing) exist? Questions of this form presuppose that we already know what ‘to exist’ means. ... 1/2 – Mauro ALLEGRANZA May 26 '16 at 14:49
  • 1
    ... We typically don't even notice this presupposition. But Heidegger does, which is why he raises the more fundamental question: what does ‘to exist’ mean? This is one way of asking what Heidegger calls the question of the meaning of Being, and Being and Time is an investigation into that question." 2/2 – Mauro ALLEGRANZA May 26 '16 at 14:49
  • @virmaior, if you can point to me where my answer seems ambiguous, I may clear it to you. Your prudence in reading such philosophical question seems me a sign that you may have a good answer. I'm sorry for my bad English. – Leandros López Jun 2 '16 at 11:49
  • @LeandrosLópez by answer do you mean question? In terms of the english, the "sure, not anthropomorphic" bit is unclear. also "like some concept of God" is a very ambiguous phrasing. – virmaior Jun 2 '16 at 13:05

Heidegger is focussed upon the meaning and the experience of oneself or other things being, rather than ontological status, or aspects of the construction or relation of the things or beings involved.

He focusses in closely on the experience of knowing of one's own existence and of knowing what it means for other things to exist. This takes us inward rather than outward, and does not easily transfer to beings of which we would not have direct experience.

So, the question you are asking lies outside of and is independent from his concerns.

  • jobermark, can you make a comparison between "entity in its totality" and "being"? It may make your answer more clear to me. – Leandros López Jun 2 '16 at 11:42
  • 'being' in the sense of 'Being and Time' is a state, not an entity. He discusses various ways of being (being self-aware without at task, being in the task, being at-hand for deployment), and how those change our psychology and relation to things and to time. This does not involve various kinds of beings or entities. – user9166 Jun 2 '16 at 15:06
  • I believe "Being-at-hand" refers to tools, not actor. – PV22 Jun 27 '16 at 16:24
  • disagree, Being is not a state... perhaps an event ? – user6917 Jun 27 '16 at 16:31
  • 1
    @MATHEMETICIAN I agree my vocabulary is not real strong here, but being is a component of a succession of events that does not change. So by a very old standard, etymology, that is a state (status -- p.p.p. of 'stare' -- "what stays"). The point is, that it is not about an entity, it is the other meaning of being. – user9166 Jun 27 '16 at 18:23

To Heidegger, "Being" is neither of your two examples, because they relate to something outside of what it is intrinsically in it-self.

However, a hindu Brahman is "Being", when they are practicing their beliefs and striving towards joining Brahma. Just as a Carpenter is "Being", when he is doing carpentry.

Unlike your two examples - where the actors are striving to join a unity of being or ultimate entity - it is not "to what ends" that concerns Heidegger, it is "acting in accordance to the self" that is important.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.