Can dasein repeat without a time or is dasein necessarily in time. I recall that dasein is structured by care, but not if that always involves times

  • 2
    Is there a particular text or quote from Heidegger that helps to add context? Perhaps none is needed. Regardless, welcome to this SE! Commented Oct 13, 2018 at 11:45
  • 1
    You are right there is an idea of "repeat". Here is something on "repetition". 3. Dasein and Temporality. "Dasein comports itself to the future by always coming back to its past". And key: "It is a movement through a world as a space of possibilities. The going back to the possibilities that have been in the moment of throwness..." This makes Dasein authentically historical. But still Dasein always carries death with it. There is a limit to this "going back". iep.utm.edu/heidegge/#H3
    – Gordon
    Commented Oct 13, 2018 at 22:03
  • 1
    I took my answer down so you could await a better answer. I still think you have to hold the above in your head while considering also Being-toward-Death. Heideggerian Terminology. As stated, there are limits to this repitition-throwness-resolution, and this is death. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heideggerian_terminology Also, again Werner Brock who gives a bigger picture of Heidegger's project in Being and Time. He covers other German philosophers also. archive.org/details/introductiontoco00broc/page/108
    – Gordon
    Commented Oct 13, 2018 at 22:37
  • 1
    Welcome to Phil.SE! Please provide more context to your question, as currently it presents a question that's too vague, and general, to be properly answered. Commented Oct 14, 2018 at 21:40

2 Answers 2


Dasein is necessarily in time, because care is always directed towards the future. This is what Heidegger means when he says that dasein is "thrown" into the world. Dasein is always caught up in what it has to do next, and so it can never repeat itself in exactly the same way. There is always a sense of novelty and difference, because the future is never fully knowable.


The repetition occurs in primordial/authentic temporality, which is not 'in time' in the ordinary sense. However, the moment of vision it produces coincides with the present-at-hand, 'in a time'.

First clarifying 'repetition', quoting from Being & Time (trans. Macquarrie & Robinson)

(H.386) the repetition makes a reciprocative rejoinder to the possibility of that existence which has-been-there. But when such a rejoinder is made to this possibility in a resolution, it is made in a moment of vision; and as such it is at the same time a disavowal of that which in the "today", is working itself out as the 'past'. 1 ...

We characterize repetition as a mode of that resoluteness which hands itself down - the mode by which Dasein exists explicitly as fate.

(footnote 1. The idea seems to be that in resolute repetition one is having, as it were, a conversation with the past, in which the past proposes certain possibilities for adoption, but in which one makes a rejoinder to this proposal by 'reciprocating' with the proposal of other possibilities as a sort of rebuke to the past, which one now disavows.)

And now the moment of vision's moment in time:

(H.338) Corresponding to the inauthentic future (awaiting), there is a special way of Being-alongside the things with which one concerns oneself. This way of Being-alongside is the Present - the "waiting-towards"; ... That Present which is held in authentic temporality and which thus is authentic itself, we call the "moment of vision". ... as an authentic Present or waiting-towards, the moment of vision permits us to encounter for the first time what can be 'in a time' as ready-to-hand or present-at-hand.

  • I sometimes wonder if having a different native language gives rise to thoughts that are simply untranslatable? If you said that these passages were produced by a schizophrenic, I would have no objections. Do very many people find them obvious and amenable?
    – Scott Rowe
    Commented Jun 4, 2022 at 19:36
  • It's not readily obvious that authentic time - the time 'proper' to the psyche - is distinctly different to clock time. It's essential to appreciate that, otherwise one assumes temporality always means clock time and nothing makes sense. I found Derrida's seminar on the subject very explanatory: Heidegger: The Question of Being and History. Commented Jun 4, 2022 at 21:18
  • Thank you. I probably should have avoided reading this question at all, because I was not successful in absorbing the point of Existentialism long ago as a student. I thought I understood, but it never reconciled with the direction I went, which has turned out wonderfully for me and requires no books or debate. Derrida, similarly seemed to say what I had already found to be true, but then he kept going off in to the weeds at every opportunity and not get to the point, which is simple and obvious once you see it, and can never be conveyed in any amount of words if you don't. Like most things.
    – Scott Rowe
    Commented Jun 5, 2022 at 11:05

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .