The Malady and the Remedy

according to

Martin Heidegger

A Dissertation

O.M.Mathew Oruvattithara

Student, M.A.(R.Sc) Course, Batch VI

Mar Thoma Vidya Niketan,

Changanacherry, Kerala

The Malady and the Remedy

according to

Martin Heidegger

O.M.Mathew Oruvattithara, Student, M.A.(R.Sc) Course, Batch VI

Mar Thoma Vidya Niketan, Changanacherry, Kerala

I Acknowledgment

1. The following dissertation is part of the M.A.(R.Sc) course of the Mar Thoma Vidya Niketan, an Institute of Theology for the laity, under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Arch Diocese of Changanacherry, Kerala. This work is mainly based on Martin Heidegger’s treatises, ‘Being and Time’, ‘Introduction to Metaphysics’, and the lectures at the Institute. Here, the author of the dissertation acknowledges his deep indebtedness to Rev.Fr.Joseph Konical, MCBS, who by his scholarship enlarged the horizon of the author’s knowledge of modern Western Philosophy. It is conceded that as the author is only a student of philosophy, errors might have crept in. Corrections are solicited. So are suggestions.

II Epitomisation of the Thesis

1. A malady is eating up the vitals of European Society. Martin Heidegger, one of the profoundest philosophers of the last century diagnosed it as ‘forgetfulness of Being’. For Heidegger, this is the prime cause for the disorientation, uncertainty and ‘inauthenticated behaviour’ of the present day West. “ ‘Anamnesis’ or waking up the memory is the way to certainty”[1]. In other words, ‘self revelation’ of ‘man’ or ‘Dasein’ or ‘being- in- the-world’ is the remedy. It is ‘phenomenology’ that processes the antidote to this lethal or deadly disease of oblivion. These points epitomise the thesis of Martin Heidegger in his two masterly works, captioned ‘Being and Time’ (B.T) and ‘An Introduction to Metaphysics’ (I.M).

III. The Treatises Introduced

1. At the outset, an attempt is made to introduce the referred two treatises, ‘Being and Time’ and ‘An Introduction to Metaphysics’. The former, published in 1927, is his ‘magnum opus’ and the latter, brought out in 1953, is a complementary to the first. To put it figuratively, if we separate these two, the one would become a cripple and the other a corpse. In ‘Being and Time’, ‘Being’ or ‘Sein’ is explored. ‘Being and Time’ poses the fundamental question, ‘What is the meaning of Being?’[2]. In other words, ‘What is it for man to be?’ [3]. In the very first part of ‘BT’, Heidegger asks poignantly, “Do we in our time have an answer to the question of what we really mean by the word ‘Being’?”[4] He points to the necessity for explicitly restating the question ‘Being’. “This question has today been forgotten”[5]. The treatise ‘BT’, as Sidney Hook has appreciated, “acted as a time bomb on the intellectual community”[6]. Despite his differences in view with his former preceptor Edmund Husserl, Heidegger was magnanimous enough to dedicate this ‘marvel’ of his to Husserl, “in friendship and admiration”[7] ‘Introduction to Metaphysics’ gives an expatiation of ‘Dasein’ or ‘being-there’ or ‘man-in- the- world.’.This treatise is a critique on ‘Sein’ in its relation to ‘Dasein’. Incidentally it may be observed that ‘I.M’ is Heidegger’s inaugural lecture at the ‘University of Freiburg’ in Germany. So these two works, deal with ‘Being’ and its relation to ‘being-there.’ Thus, through ‘BT’ and ‘IM’ Heidegger radicalized the philosophy of his one time professor, Edmund Husserl, the founder of ‘phenomenology’, to perceive ‘Being’ in a comprehensive way. One might say that the whole prophetic mission of Heidegger amounts to making “each man ask the fundamental question with maximum involvement.”[8]

IV Expatiation of the Themes

A. Its need

1. Admittedly, Heidegger’s treatment of the themes is abstruse. He coins words and phrases, as if by ‘poetic licence’. Their imports too, change many times, leaving the reader puzzled. So is his borrowing of terms from classical languages. Hence the need for the expatiation of the themes.

B. ‘Questioning a privileged happening’

1. “Why are there essents, rather than nothing?.”[9] Heidegger opens ‘IM’ with this ‘most fundamental of all questions’[10]. It is predicated ‘fundamental ‘ because it is the “most far reaching…..,the broadest and the deepest question”[11]. As a phenomenologist, this philosopher held that the ‘essent’ as such and as a whole is unveiled through this question. To put it differently, ‘Truth’ which signifies emergence through unveiling or unconcealment or ‘alethia’[12] as the Greeks called it, is manifested through this questioning. In ‘BT’ Heidegger expatiates, “ Thus to work out the question of ‘Being’ adequately, we must make an entity- the inquirer- transparent in his own being. The very asking of this question is an entity’s mode of ‘Being’ and as such it gets its essential character from what is enquired into- namely ‘Being’. This entity which each of us is himself and which includes inquiring as one of the possibilities of Being, we shall denote by the term ‘Dasein’.”[13] Considering the greatness of the consequentiality of the questioning, it is suggested that it is “a privileged happening, that we call an event”[14]. Hence man need not feel frightened to formulate questions. In fact, ‘IM’ means ‘an introduction to the asking of fundamental questions’[15]. We must concede without reluctance and reservation that “metaphysics is a name for the pivotal point and core of all philosophy”[16]. The aim or the be all and end all of philosophy is the beginning and end of the ‘essent’, with particular emphasis on man himself . No doubt, philosophers, be they epistemologists or phenomenologists place the ‘human being’ at the centre of their enquiry. Heidegger underscores the importance of the human being, by pointing out that it is ‘Dasein’ or ‘being-there’ that asks the question, ‘What is Being?’

C. ‘Man is ek-sistent’

1. Heidegger asserts unambiguously that the West has become oblivious to the fundamental fact concerning ‘Being’ and its reaction to ‘being-there’ i.e man (‘Sein’ and ‘Dasein’ respectively in the German language.) “Man stands out, ex – sists, not merely exists from Being and things”[17]. This condition of the ‘being’, alienated and scattered, we may call ‘fallenness’, a ‘verfall’or ‘deep fall’[18].Its main results are ‘tranquillity’, ‘alienation’ and ‘scatteredness’.

D. ‘Sein’ or ‘Being’

1. ‘Being’ is not a novel concept of Heidegger. Philosophers like Heraclitus of ancient Greece and Immanuel Kant of Germany had employed this term. For Heraclitus, “Being inclines intrinsically to self concealment”[19].In the abstract sense ‘Being’ is that which underlies all the world phenomena. It is ‘wholly other’ to the beings. Admittedly, it is the ‘transcendens’ that cannot fall under the categories applicable to ‘being’. One is tempted to draw a parallel to the ‘substance’ of Spinoza or the ‘Noumena’ of Kant. It may further be explained by employing the method of juxtaposition. While Nietzsche dismisses ‘It’ as an ‘empty word’ his compatriot Heidegger affirms that “Being is that permanent reality within ‘being’, which endures and remains and finally disposes us to the meaning of ‘being’ or appearance.”[20] Elsewhere, ‘Being’ is described as follows. “Being gathers being together in so far as it is being. Being is the gathering together – Logos”[21].Heidegger initially appears to be reluctant to formulate, ‘what is Being?’ in scholastic style or questo manner. The reason is the following. The ‘Being’ is ostensibly ineffable. Yet he qualifies ‘Being’ as the ‘inner light’ or “that illumination through which we become conscious of our meaning or of our existence and existence itself”[22]. Heidegger opines that ‘It’ is known through ‘primordial’ thinking as distinct from ‘calculative’ thinking. To ask a question on the nature of ‘Being’ would imply that “Being ‘is’ a ‘what’, a thing or substance or entity”[23]. Heidegger enumerates three prejudices to this type of questioning. Firstly, ‘Being’ does not fit into any of the ordinary categories of thought. One is reminded of the revelation of the OT ‘I am who I am’. The second objection, which is a sequel to the first, is that it defies definition. Finally, ‘Being’ is discernable or self-evident. Nevertheless, this fundamental question emanates from the philosopher in Heidegger. He is seen ruminating ‘What is Being?’ or in other words ‘what is it to be?’ This could be answered, according to Heidegger, only by first answering the question of what kind of being humans have. And, he substantiates his stand through the following stance. Asking a question implies two things. The first is that the questioner should have ‘some’ understanding or inkling of the thing asked about. Secondly, the questioner, nonetheless ‘lacks’ a full understanding of it. Therefore, the answer to the question concerning ‘Being’ is obtained by clarifying and conceptualising the understanding that we already have.

E. A Tragedy

1. The true tenor of ‘Being’ was attained initially by the reflections and rationalizations of Parmenides and Heraclitus ‘the two decisive thinkers’[24] or the two ‘inaugurators of all philosophy’[25] through the Greek language ‘at once the most powerful and most spiritual of all languages’[26]. For Heidegger, poets like Sophocles, and Holderlin were also revealers of Reality. “The poet’s language as in the case of these great minds allows the ‘Being of beings’ to appear and manifest itself .” [27] In fact, Heidegger holds that “words and languages are not wrappings in which things are packed for the commerce of those who write and speak. It is in words and language that things first come into being”[28]. Heidegger speaks out, “the origin of language is in essence mysterious…..Language is the primordial poetry in which a people speaks being ……. The Greeks created and experienced this poetry through Homer.”[29] A comparison with the Indian philology is not out of place here. Though ‘Being’ is an oft-quoted term in Western philosophy, it is a tragedy that it has forfeited the specific significance assigned to it by the Greeks of the yore. Over this mishap, Martin Heidegger minces no words. He seems to burst out. “Philosophy has lost its receptivity to the Being of being” [30]. This tragic situation may be touchingly depicted by borrowing the words of Arthur Schopenhauer, the ‘Vedantic’ philosopher of Germany. “ The eye, the vision, which originally projected the project into potency becomes mere looking at or looking over or gaping at. Vision has degenerated into mere optics”[31].Again, we find Heidegger insinuating at the inexactness, if not the ineffectiveness of the current use of language to bring home or revealing the supreme task of conveying what ‘Being’ is. Today language is conceived only ‘to represent and classify’[32].This certainly is yet another instance of the numbing of memory of modern man.

F. ‘The hollow men……stuffed men’

1. What is the fall out? Or what is the casualty? Certainly a crisis or catastrophe. Surely, a spectre is hovering over Europe, the spectre of ‘nihilism’. The incidence has befallen ‘man’. By cherishing a narrow technological approach, and manipulative attitude to the world and also by ignoring the inexorable question of existence, the West in particular and mankind in general have plummeted into the vortex of ‘nothingness’. ‘Man’ has fallen into the abominable abyss of confusion and chaos. ‘Being’ and its derivatives ‘to be’ and ‘being-there’ have been deprived of their significations. Western people have become, “the hollow men and stuffed men” to use the punchant phrase of the famous English poet T.S.Eliot. The pristine valour of the ancients has given way to the squalor of the moderns. After analysing the present day existence of man, in his Magnum Opus, ‘Being and Time’, and its elucidation ‘An Introduction to Metaphysics’, Heidegger comes to the following conclusion. Humans are floating jetsam, caught in dread, anxiety and guilt, swept by the swift flow along the river of time to the inevitable end, ‘Death’.

G. A philosophy, not of gloom

1. Though Heidegger is not a ‘laughing philosopher’ like Gabriel Marcel, Heidegger’s is not a philosophy of gloom or doom. True, like Daniel he passes judgment ; yet he does not abandon humanity to fate. With the prophetic insight of Isaiah, Heidegger promulgates a new principle and methodology to redeem man form the ‘fallen state’ of the ‘forgetfulness of Being’. Truly, his is an appeal to the depths. Man must give up the common sense stance. People, if they wish to live ‘authentically’, must broaden their perspectives. They should fulfil the following double- fold imperatives. Firstly, they should view themselves as part of ‘Being’, rather than taking their lives for granted or as a fortuitous event. Humanity should recover the grand understanding of ‘Being’ that was achieved by the soul searching savants of Greece. Ours is the tragedy that this was little cared for by the philosophers of the subsequent epochs. Secondly, “man must stand reverently before ‘Being’ and let the Being do the talking”[33]. It is because ‘Being’ slips off from the tongue of the talkative while it steps down to the receptacle of the receptive. Assuredly, one has to behold the ‘Being’ and know it in the ‘stillness of silence’. “Say less, but let what you say bring about an appeal for a return to the Being”[34]. “This is why a Japanese mystic, well versed in Zen Buddhism is better able to understand the Being”[35]. “Truth needs unveiling, working up, not just description”[36]. The invocation by the monosyllable ‘aum’ of the Indian sages, or by the tetragrammaton ‘yhwh’ of the Israelites are comparable examples.

H. ‘Dasein’-‘being there’-Connotations

1. Is there any particular ‘kind of being’ that would serve as the starting point for an enquiry into ‘Being’?. ‘Yes’, answers Heidegger. And that is ‘man’ himself. In the words of Heidegger, “his ‘being’ is an issue for him”[37] and “man is the ontological entity”[38]. Heidegger proclaims emphatically, “Each of us is grazed at least once, perhaps more than once, by the hidden power of this question, even if he is not aware of what is happening to him”[39]. He employs the expression ‘Dasein’ to affirm man’s ontological constitution. Literally ‘Dasein’ denotes ‘being there’.It may be taken to mean existence or more specifically ‘being-in-the-world’. An explanation is required at this context. The word ‘Dasein’ is ordinarily translated as existence. But Heidegger breaks it into its components, ‘Da’ meaning ‘there’ and ‘Sein’ meaning ‘being’. Thus Heidegger’s interpretation carries an ontological denotation to ‘Dasein’ besides its temporal and historical aspects.That is why it is observed by certain critics that Heidegger leaves philosophy in pursuit after mysticism and theology. “In general, he means man’s consciousness, historical existence in the world which is always projected into a there beyond its here”[40].For Heidegger, “Being there implies the awareness of being”[41].It is from ‘Being’ that ‘being’ comes forth. “Our ‘being – there’ is grounded”[42]in our understanding of the ‘Being’. Heidegger is emphatic that ‘Dasein’ has a preliminary understanding of both ‘being’ and ‘Being’. If it did not, it could not understand the questions ‘What is Being’ or ‘what is being?’. Nor could it provide any intelligent answer. Indeed all human beings , even those who do not ask these question, have some understanding of ‘being’. Otherwise, they could not engage with other beings, or even with themselves. Though not always, Heidegger hyphenates ‘Dasein’ as ‘Da-Sein’ to stress the sense of being ‘here’ or ‘there’ in the world.Heidegger occasionally suggests “that ‘here’ is where I, the speaker, am and ‘there’ is where he or she, the person spoken about, is.”[43]

2. The defence for hyphenating ‘Da-sein’ is the following. For Heidegger the everyday world is, on the one hand, a vast ‘instrumental’ system and on the other hand a ‘personal’ plane too. Both are inexorably bound by space and time. It is to bring out the intimate relation that ‘Dasein’ develops towards this world that Heidegger has, as mentioned earlier, hyphenates ‘Dasein’ as ‘Da-sein’. According to Heidegger, this concocted or coined usage will convey the idea that the world is the plane of ‘Dasein’.

3. When it is said that ‘Da-sein’ is essentially in the world, it means many things. Foremost, is its finitude, as fixed in a spatial situation or place. The fixing to a particular place, albeit appears to be a fetter for man, is really the hallmark of his freedom. “Place is that which permits man to be man. The loss of place is death.”[44] It may be recalled here that in ‘Oedipus’, Sophocles spoke of this aspect. Further, his ‘Antigone’ is seen asserting that the right to bury her brother at a place transcended the law of the State.

4. The next point to be borne in mind is that Heidegger restricts the use of ‘Dasein’ to signify humans only, even though in its latitudinous usage, it encompasses all ‘beings’ including material objects like trees, atoms etc. Heidegger does so because, of all the entities in the world, man alone has some understanding of and some responsibility for who he is. That is, man alone ‘stands out’ or ‘ex-sists’, from the general aggregate of beings. ‘Dasein’ is definitely the central object, though it is not an exemplary or paradigmatic entity.

5. A further point is that ‘being’ is intimately intertwined with ‘Time’ which in essence is a continuum. This may be illustrated in the case of artefacts. The contrivances and artefacts that have come to mankind in ‘the present’ from the ‘past’ and those that are created in the ‘present’ are used for the ‘future’s sake’ and for future goals. So, for ‘Dasein’, to borrow the words of Omar Khayyam, the poet, philosopher and mathematician, there is no ‘dead yesterday or unborn tomorrow’ in the philosophical sense. “Whenever ‘Dasein’ tacitly understands and interprets something like ‘Being’, it does so with time as its stand point…… time needs to be explicated primordially as the horizon for the understanding of ‘Being’.”[45] But it is a paradox that this profound philosopher closes his colossal classic, ‘Being and Time’ with the unanswered question “ Does ‘time’ itself manifest itself as the horizon of ‘Being’”.[46]

I. Other Aspects of ‘Dasein’

1. It may be pointed out here, that the other aspects or details of ‘Dasein’ are furnished in the portion ‘A resume of the result of phenomenology’ that is dealt with in this work subsequently.

J. ‘Temporality’-A New Model

1. For a clear appreciation of the structure of existence, this philosopher introduces a new model called ‘temporality’. With its dimension of the past, present and future, this is the distinguishing feature of ‘Dasein’. For, while other things and animals live in time and change with time man has sway over time in its three aspects of past, present and future. Past summorises the ‘unchangeable facticity’ of man’s ‘thrownness’ into the world ; the present signifies the ‘fallenness’ due to the forgetfulness of yesterday and the indifference of tomorrow ; the future points to the existentiality of an indeterminate world of potentiality and the consequent freedom for action. Therefore, it may be safely sustained that while everything fears time, time fears man. It is affirmed that man can appropriate the flow and flux of time both in the past and future aspects ; the ‘ahead’ and the ‘already’ besides the ‘now’, both in the ‘superficial’ and ‘deep’ denotations of time. The ‘authentic’ ‘Dasein’ discloses “the unity of a future which makes present on the process of having been.”[47] Heidegger here clarifies the close relationship between history and ‘temporality’. Genuine history is the exploration of the ‘authentic’ and ‘retrievable’ possibilities of ‘Dasein’ from the bygone epochs. But today’s topsiturvydom is that the beginning is emasculated and exaggerated into a caricature of greatness. In Schopenhauer’s words “life is a business that doesn’t cover its cause”.[48]

K. ‘Existentiell Enquiry’

1. The concrete question that each man asks about his own existence, is designated by Heidegger ‘existentiell’, as contrasted to ‘existential’. This latter is concerned with existence in general. Men are no mere onlookers on ‘Being’. But, they are participants of ‘It’ and in ‘It’. Hence the importance of ‘existentiell’ enquiry. It is this type of question, coming out of thinking that distinguishes man from other animals. No wonder, the ancient Greeks very naturally remarked that ‘man is a thinking being or a questioning ‘animal’. Parmenides’ maxim, translated as ‘thinking and being are the same’ and the Greek exhortation ‘gnothi seauton’, ‘know thyself’, originally inscribed on the temple of Apollo at Delfi and subsequently portrayed at the portals of Plato’s Academy, form the finale of this process of ‘questioning’ generated from thought. “Man must seek himself …….clearer……, his meaning lies in the ontological structure of his reality. Man must seek himself in the ground of life, the Ungrund”[49] To express it differently, man makes himself by questioning to himself on the phenomena which mould his being. This phenomenological method of asking to himself is an inescapable fact. Fully aware of this, Heidegger earnestly endeavours through “an heroic attempt to preserve the ontological freedom”[50] of man from getting lost in the labyrinth of distortions. For this, he ventures, braving the criticism of scholars, to lay aside philosophy and search in the vistas of mysticism and theology. Heidegger, however, attempts to rescue man from errings like the positivism of Comte, the father of Sociology and the materialism of Marx. Heidegger opines that “the relation between the adjective and the noun must be dialectical…..Marxism is daemonic and thus destructive, because the adjective economic has absorbed within itself the noun, ‘man,’. Slavery is the result.”[51]

L. ‘Existential analytic’

1. “Dasein is an entity for which, in its being, that being is an issue.”[52] Unlike other entities, it has no definite essence. In the first chorus of ‘Antigone’ of Sophocles we read, “There is much that is strange but nothing that surpasses man in strangeness”. Existence is verily man’s essence. The name given by Heidegger for the charting of the constitution of ‘Dasein’ is ‘existential analytic.’ The method employed is ‘phenomenology’, that he learned at the feet of the great ‘Gamaliel’, Edmund Husserl.

M. ‘Phenomenology’

1. This is his epistemology. “Phenomenology signifies a methodological conception”.[53] The term ‘phenomenology’ expresses the maxim ‘to the things themselves’ [54] Obviously this word is a derivation from ‘phenomenon’. But it is different from ‘appearing’, which “ is a ‘not showing’……itself.”[55]. The Greek word ‘phainesthai’ meaning to ‘show itself’ or ‘to be in the light’ is the root from which ‘phenomenon’ and ‘phenomenology’ are derived.

2. As a starting point, Heidegger discusses what ‘phenomenon’ is. It is that which ‘shows itself ’ or ‘lets itself be seen for what it is’. He then turns to the term ‘logos’. As speech, ‘logos’ is also ‘showing’. “Thus phenomenology is fundamentally a showing of that which shows itself or stripping away of the concealment and distortion.”[56] “ The phenomenological method is not one of proof; rather it is one of description, wherein it is hoped that others will see things in the same way.”[57] To put in simple words, phenomenology is an approach that concentrates on the relation of phenomena and the individual consciousness, especially when uninterfered by any theory or any construction or intentionality or any other technique including logic. Phenomenology can be explained as follows. “Its primary objective has been to take a fresh approach…..without theories about their causal explanation and as free as possible from unexamined presuppositions……. The first step…. is the so called phenomenological reduction or epoche, by which is meant the description of mental acts in a way that is free of theories and presuppositions…… The second step…… is the eidetic reduction, through which by reflecting on a particular act (eg. seeing a tree) and by imaginatively varying certain of its features, the essence or eidas, not merely of the particular act but of many comparable one (eg. seeing as such) may be intuited….. Finally the phenomenological view takes into account the process by which objects are constituted or built upon the cognition of them.”[58] “Or phenomena be described as they give themselves, free from any cultural, philosophical or ontological bias; it requires an ascetic neutrality in ones attitude towards the phenomenon of ones awareness”[59]The reduction or bracketing involved in this process does not deny or ignore the reality of qualities. It is adopted so that ‘the real’ in them may be indexed.

N. A Resume of the results of ‘Phenomenology’

1. Resume

--------

(a) ‘Phenomenology’ provides a deeper perspective about the ‘actuality’ and ‘potentiality’ of ‘Dasein’ . It is a techinique for an inroad into the philosophical problems .

2. ‘Dasein’ is not just a specimen

-------------------

(a). It is never complete in its ‘being’. It has no fixed essence or properties. Rather it is constituted by ‘possibilities’ which Heidegger christens ‘existentialia’. “The essence of ‘Dasein’ lies in its ‘existentialia’.”[60] However, ‘Dasein’ is not just a specimen among a class of beings. It has a uniqueness or individuality of its own. This may be described as a unique ‘mineness’. Students of philosophy are apt to compare this remark on ‘Dasein’ to the ‘windowless monad’ of Leibniz, the German thinker. ‘Dasein’ stands forth creating its own ways of being in a way that no other entity does.

3. ‘Averageness’ of ‘Da-sein’

-----------

(a). Nonetheless, the above account does not mean that ‘Dasein’ can be construed with reference to some concrete idea of existence. Nor can ‘It’ be attributed to possess “the differential character of some definite way of existing”.[61] Therefore, ‘It’ should be uncovered by ‘phenomenological’ process from ‘Its’ “undifferentiated…… everydayness”.[62] ‘Everydayness’ is a mode of “forgetfulness’ of ‘being’ or fleeing in the face of ‘It’ ”.[63]It may be called repetition. The ‘fallen man’, or the ‘man-in-the-world’ or ‘Da-sein’ has two other characteristics. They are ‘averageness’ which means ‘uniformity’ or ‘neutrality’. The other characteristic is ‘publicity’ which may mean loss of individuality or signify proneness for imitation.

4. ‘Choose to win’

----------------

(a). Heidegger heralds a ray of hope here . As ‘Dasein’ in each case is essentially ‘Its’ own possibility, ‘It’ can in ‘Its’ very ‘being’ ‘choose’. Yes, ‘choose’ to win. But Heidegger brings in a coveat too. ‘Dasein’ “can also lose itself and never win itself or only seem to do so.”[64]

5. ‘To be or not to be’- The indecision of Hamlet, repeated

------------------------------

(a) The option open to ‘Dasein’ will vex ‘It’. As was the case with Hamlet, the prince of Denmark, ‘Dasein’ also is confronted with the problem ‘to be or not to be’. As a corollary there emerges two paths; one of ‘authenticity’ and the other of ‘inauthenticity’. To be ‘ authentic’ is to be true to ones own self ; to be ones own person ; to do ones own things. To borrow from Shakespeare, the poet par excellece, ‘to be free , frank and fearless’ is ‘authenticity’. But it should not be entertained that ‘authenticity’ implies any sort of eccentricity or oddity. ‘Authenticity’ is a state that proceeds or generates from the within and not shaped or superimposed from the without of ‘Dasein’.

6. ‘Authenticity’ and ‘Inauthenticity’

-----------------

(a). ‘Authenticity’ is that when the ‘Dasein’ is in full sway over the potentialities. ‘Inauthenticity’ is that condition where ‘Dasein’ has relinquished the potentialities to ‘others’, to the ‘anonymous’ ‘they’. Here three points can be noted. Firstly, “the ‘inauthenticity’ of ‘Dasein’ does not signify any ‘less’ ‘being’ or any lower degree of ‘being’.”[65] Secondly, ‘inauthenticity’ per se or in itself is no unqualified blemish. For, it is common knowledge that without it man would not have been in the world as a rational being. Nor could man make any sensible decision at all. Thirdly and more important, is the fact that the ‘Dasein’ can reclaim the ‘relinquishing’ to the ‘anonymous’ ‘they’. “Conscience summons Dasein’s Self from ‘Its’ lostness in the they”.[66]Here is optimism, pure and simple.

7. ‘Instrumental World’

-------------

(a). Yet another point is that a person’s ‘being-in-the-world’ is inseparable from that of other human beings, things, objects and contrivances. Heidegger posited a fundamental relation between the mode of being of objects and humanity. The ‘being’ of beings or other entities as well as of ‘Dasein’ itself is not independent of ‘Dasein’. Both material and non material objects, as also every phenomenon have a human basis. That is to say, tools, instruments, even theories and questions too depend for their origination and manifestation on the fact that they are produced, used, asked or explained by human beings. To generalise, there is a close link between man and his environmental world including the instruments that he makes use of. The closeness with the ‘instrumental world’ is due to the reason that these artefacts or contrivances come to humanity from the past and are being used in the present, not only to make life possible but to make it better. So, when it is suggested that ‘Dasein’ is in the world, it is not simply in the same sense that it occupies a place in the world together with other objects. Rather, it is essentially because, it continually interprets and engages with external entities and their contexts and environments in which they lie. That is why it is held that ‘Dasein’ is not just one thing among others. On the other hand, it is at the centre of the world, drawing together its threads. It is because ‘Dasein’ does this, that there is a unitary world rather than a collection of entities. To put it more explicitly, ‘Dasein’ brings the whole world along with it as an integral whole. But it is an irony that the ‘selfhood’ or ‘mineness’ or ‘thineness’ used by the pronouns ‘I’ or ‘You’ gets submerged, absorbed or obliterated in this instrumental world as to become just a cog in the ‘world-machine’. The man who thus lacks identity loses ‘authenticity’ and hence becomes ‘anonymous’. He is simply one among the crowd or ‘anonymous man’, which, however, should not be construed as self-effacemnent. This has resulted in the ‘averageness’ and ‘everydayness’of modern man.

8. ‘Personal World’

---------

(a). It has already been noted that ‘Dasein’ is ‘Being-in-the-world’. This is elucidated by our philosopher in the following manner. “ ‘Being-in-the-world’ is a state of ‘Dasein’.”[67] “ ‘Dasein’ is fascinated with its world. ‘Dasein’ is thus absorbed in the world.”[68] “The world is always the one that I share with others. The world of ‘Dasein’ is a ‘with world’. ‘Being-in’ is Being with others .”[69] There is thus a relationship of ‘Being’ from ‘Dasein’ to ‘Dasein’.”[70] To put it in simple words no ‘Dasein’ is an island. It may be commented that Heidegger does not subscribe himself to the theory ‘solipsism’. All these things signify the personal world of ‘Dasein’ as contrasted with ‘his instrumental world’. It points to the social nature of man. ‘Man’, so goes an aphorism of Aristotle, ‘is a social animal ; he who is not social is either a beast or god.’ Undoubtedly, impelled by nature and compelled by necessity man is a gregarious being. The directive principle to the ‘Dasein’ is not solitude, but solicitude. On saner moments ‘Dasein’ definitely will cogitate like Alexander Selkirk who found himself lonely in an uninhabited island, following a ship wreck, ‘Oh! solitude where are the charms that sages have sung of thee.’

9. ‘Concern’

------

(a). The usage ‘Being-in-the-world’ denotes a wider relation than the spatial one of ‘Dasein’. Certainly it means more than the ‘Dasein’ being localised at a particular place. It connotes that ‘Dasein’ is bound by all the adjuncts and influences of the environment such as work of production , enjoyment etc. Heidegger calls this relation ‘concern’. It may take two forms. The one is ‘indifferent concern’, also called ‘present-at-hand’. The other is named ‘practical’, otherwise called ‘ready-at-hand’.

10. ‘The anonymous they’

-------------

(a). Disgusting, however, is the fact that more often than not, ‘Dasein’ loses the ‘practical’ ‘concern’ or ‘solicitude’ with all ‘co-Dasein’. The inevitable result is that the ‘Dasein’ gets dominated. The ‘I’ very often gets swept away by the rising and disquieting tide of collectivism. Social conventions begin to have sway and say over the ‘Dasein’. Conformism is imposed upon. On interrogating the individual to identify the culprit of this superimposition or when asked as to who the culpable is, the individual invariably answers ‘they’. As amplification, the individual he or she would repeat parrot-like ‘they’, the ‘indefinite’ ‘anonymous they’. Heidegger uses the term ‘das-Man’ for this ‘they’. This attitude is the explicitation of ‘inauthenticity’.

11. All is not lost

---------

(a). Despite the above sombre state of affairs, all is not lost. ‘Phenomenology’ can be invoked to awaken the memory and thus rescue ‘Dasein’ from the ‘memory numbing waters of Lethe’, the reprehensible rivulet or stream of the nether world. Or ‘phenomenology’ will lend a helping hand to ‘Dasein’, struggling in this boggling bonfire. The reason is the following. The concreteness of man as ‘being-in-the-world’, however, does not do away with his openness to the world or a certain transcendence to the world. “ Dasein is its disclosedness”[71]declares Heidegger. A critical student cannot but observe that here Heidegger’s philosophy verges on fanciful poetry, if not on mysticism itself. He uses quasi-mystical and religious phrases and idioms.

12. ‘Facticity’

-------

(a). ‘Facticity’ is the term used to characterise this ‘disclosedness’. The idea conveyed by this term is that ‘Dasein’ finds ‘Itself’ ‘to be’ amidst given situations. Some of them may have been due to Dasein’s own volition or option or choice. A few others are the results of extraneous factors like society , history, heredity etc. As one, moulded not to arouse or play upon emotions, unlike the French philosopher Rousseau, Heidegger seems to opine that if man is ‘in chains everywhere’ it is not something to be rent asunder by one blow, but to be reckoned with. Hence he highlights that the ‘possibilities’ of existence are ever conditioned by the ‘facticity’ of existence.

13. ‘ Affectiveness’ or ‘moods’

---------

(a). ‘Disclosedness’ is manifested in two ways. Firstly, through ‘affectiveness’ and secondly by way of ‘understanding’. The first may be described by another term, ‘moods’. It is not a mere transitory or fugitive feeling that comes casually and goes unceremoniously. A ‘mood’ assails us. It comes neither from outside nor even from inside. Surprisingly it arises out of“‘being-in-the-world’ as a way of such ‘being’.” [72] Many eyebrows may be aroused at this observation as Heidegger very obviously abandons logic for a philosophy of sentiment or enigmatic statement. Heidegger, however, asserts that ‘moods’ may light up our ‘being-in-the-world’ or it discloses or reveals how as ‘Daseins’ we are attuned to our environments. The examples of such ‘moods’ are boredom, joy, fear, anxiety etc.

14. ‘Thrownness’

-----------

(a). Conceded that the ‘affective states’ light up the ‘there’ of ‘Dasein’. Yet, the ‘when’ and ‘whither’ of his existence remains hidden. Rousseau’s aphorism “man is born free” appears unacceptable to the philosopher of our study. ‘Dasein’ is brought into the plane of existence not by the exercise of ‘Its’ will but the operation or play or ‘dispensation’ of a will external to ‘It’. Differently put, ‘Dasein’ is there due to ‘thrownness’ by or of someone else .

15. ‘Understanding’ – ‘a posteriori method’

---------------------------

(a). The second meaning of ‘disclosure’ is ‘understanding’. It signifies the way or possibility open to ‘Dasein’. Obviously it is founded on ‘practical concern’. ‘Understanding’, to quote Heidegger himself, “is being competent to do something”.[73] This is followed by another dynamics. ‘Dasein’ projects itself into possibilities. In this way ‘Dasein’ incorporates things into the world and make it significant. Another aspect of ‘understanding’ is ‘interpretation’. In the real sense, this is the art of assigning the correct meaning to a particular thing or things and relating it or them to the ambit of ‘understanding’ that we already possess. That is why it is said that ‘interpretation’ is not ‘a priori’ but ‘a posteriori’ or based on some prior ‘understanding’. Philosophically put, interpretation will not happen on ‘tabula rasa’. ‘Interpretation’ may be ‘informal’ or ‘formal’. The former takes place unconsciously or casually. The latter is always directed by the principles of hermeneutics. As a passing remark it may be observed that Heidegger was very much interested in the discipline known hermeneutics.

16. ‘ Idle talk’-‘Gossip’-‘Curiosity’

----------------

(a). ‘Understanding’ and ‘interpretation’ are made possible through discourse, of which the vehicle is language. By language, a thing talked of, gets unhidden. This is ‘letting-be’, according to Heidegger. In other words, this is exposing a thing to what it is as such. This ‘unhiding’ is ‘Truth’, taught the Greeks. Therefore, they declared that ‘man’ is the ‘alethia’ of ‘Being’. But alas! discourse has degenerated into ‘idle talk’. This is the fallout of the lack of interpersonal relation between the talker and the listener. ‘Idle talk’ is characterised firstly by gossip or tendency to propagate falsehood ; secondly, by curiosity, which is a form of distraction, or a need for something ‘new’ without real interest or probing into the baseless hearsays and rumours ; and thirdly by ambiguity or aimlessness. To be sure, besides ‘averageness’ and ‘everydayness’ these are other marks of the ‘fallen’ man.

17. ‘Death’—No proxy

----------

(a). Grasping ‘Dasein’ holistically is the task before ‘Da-sein’, i.e to be authentic and lead a resolute existence. This can be effected certainly by reflecting on the phenomenon of ‘death’ and conforming to the dictates of ‘conscience’. ‘Dasein’ should be conscious that he or she is mortal or a ‘being’ unto ‘death’. There is no proxy for ‘death’. Even if one is prone to observe that Heidegger’s treatment of ‘death’ and its causative factor ‘anxiety’ smacks of morbidity, he certainly does not encourage brooding over ‘death’. But, undoubtedly, he underscores that remembrance of ‘death’ will bring in ‘urgency’. ‘Death’ must be viewed as the boundary of ‘Dasein’ as ‘being-in-the-world’, although it is certainly not the rounding off of existence. Once this affirmative character of eschatological aspect of ‘death’ is realised, the ‘Dasein’ is geared up to gather or garner ‘Its’ possibilities. There appears to be an element of ‘theology’ in these assertions.

18. The clarion call

-----------

(a). Another conducive factor is ‘conscience’. It is a clarion call or summons to “the existent to take upon himself the being that is delivered over to death and to project himself resolutely upon it.”[74] In short, it is a call to ‘concern’. In this context, a word about ‘guilt’ is not out of place. It is the feeling that happens when man chooses one from many or varied possibilities.

V. Recapitulation—lion and ‘lion-sheep’

1. ‘Dasein’ has the existential aspect called ‘care’. This is a three-pronged one. The first is that ‘Dasein’ is ahead of ‘itself’. This implies possible projecting and understanding. The next is that ‘Dasein’ is already in the world. This conveys ‘facticity’, ‘thrownness’ and ‘affectiveness’. Lastly, ‘Dasein’ is close to the world. This connotes ‘falling’ or ‘submerging to the anonymous they’ and the shattering of possibilities.

2. Nevertheless, ‘Dasein’ has ‘transcendental’ aspect too. This is the inherent ‘potentiality’ or innate ‘possibility’ of ‘Dasein’. This is what ‘Dasein’ has to ruminate upon to be free from ‘facticity’ or the snares of the world.

3. These propositions can be summorised in the form of a fable. A lioness gave birth to a cub in a dense forest. Providentially it chanced that a few shepherds saw this young lion, took it and reared it among the flock of sheep. Quite naturally, the cub became oblivious of ‘who it was’ or of its heritage. Consequently, it began to behave like any other sheep. One day, this animal, along with the flock of sheep, went to the forest to feed upon. All of a sudden a huge lion came across this flock and was astonished to see a member of his tribe, a young lion, grazing grass and bleating like a sheep. As the new comer lion roared, the flock fled. The ‘lion-sheep’ too took to flight. Immediately, the big lion caught hold of the ‘lion-sheep’ and told him, ‘you are a lion’. The other said ‘no’ and began to bleat. The stranger lion took him to a nearby brook and asked him to look in the water at his own image and see if he did not resemble the huge lion. The young lion did as he was asked and acknowledged that he did resemble the huge stranger lion. The ‘lion-sheep’ tried its voice and lo! he was soon roaring as grandly as the stranger. Yes, the ‘lion-sheep’ was no longer a bleating being, as he had experienced ‘self awakening’, from within.

4. Once ‘anamnesis’ dawns on ‘It’, ‘Dasein’ definitely becomes ‘Sein’. Despite the differences in dynamics, it would be like the regaining of the ‘Paradise lost’.

VI. Evaluation

1. Heidegger makes an assiduous attempt to rescue the ‘being-in-the-world’ from the absurdity of triviality that characterises a mere coming into being and passing out of being. It is to the credit of Heidegger that the pessimism reflected in the outburst of Macbeth, “Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It’s a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing”, is not his vein of thought. Rather, his appeal appears to be akin to the optimistic exhortation of the Indian sage of the yore who burst out in rhapsody “ye! the children of immortality”, [75] “arise, awake.”[76]

2. The implied message is enthusing and encouraging. It is this. Though men cannot be the seers of the certain, they can still be the prophets of the probable. Therefore, there is “an aristocratic element”[77] in his philosophy. It may be argued that, the oft quoted criticism, that Heidegger is highly unconventional, his interpretations arbitrary and guided by prejudices, wanes into the vanishing point of insignificance, on account of this aspect.

3. It is, however, conceded that his exaltation of the ‘primordial thinking’ and the depreciation of ‘calculative thinking’ on empirical events amount to a rejection of science and inductive thought process.

4. Without any qualms it may be pointed out that Heidegger’s ‘Being’ with the characteristics of ‘Truth’, ‘Light’, ‘Joy’ etc.,as brought out in his treatises under review, is nothing but the ‘Personal’ ‘Deity’ of primordial or sophisticated religions, with its head chopped off. Or, as the commentator in the Encyclopaedia remarks “Perhaps the search for thinking Being is merely a disguised quest for a kind of belief in God.”[78]Perhaps, Heidegger might be giving vent to the murmuring of his subconscious mind, that man is incorrigibly religious.

5. Likewise, his metamorphosis in subsequent years is puzzling. In later works the notion of ‘autonomous man’ yields to the concept of man as a ‘responsible steward’, which is a concept of Catholic Theology. No denial is possible, that his is a philosophy that set out from man’s quest for ‘Being’ and ended up by talking of a ‘Beings’ condescension to man. A wit might remark “is it not like the chasing of man by the ‘hound of heaven’?”. A keener intellect should be excused if he makes the observation that “is not Heidegger’s later philosophy, an apology or commentary, if not a euphemistic encomium on ‘Incarnation’?”. Assuredly, during this period he makes a most significant attempt to explore and vindicate unequivocally a ‘spiritual dimension’ to human life. Verily, his information paved the way to formation and eventual transformation.

6. Not unnaturally, therefore, some Christian theologians have adopted with adaptation, the core of his philosophy to bolster up their perspectives. “…..his way of philosophizing and the concepts he has developed provide the basis for a viable 20^th century philosophical (natural) theology and can be used further for the articulation and elucidation of the whole body of Christian truth in a contemporary way.”[79]

7. There is yet another serious criticism, from the secular philosophical perspective. Heidegger’s all out praise to Heraclitus and Parmenidus, the pre-Socratic philosophers of ancient Greece as the harbingers of ‘metaphysical freedom’, appears to be hyperbolic or exaggerated . “For its fulfilment, metaphysical freedom required its concrete manifestation in political and social structures in terms of justice.”[80]Heidegger seems to marginalize the achievements of Plato and Aristotle.

8. Heidegger’s is a saga of a philosopher, who, earnestly yearned and proclaimed himself to be ‘phenomenological’, nonetheless, fell under the spell of ‘existentialism’. For , the trauma, let loose by the shattering of the ‘philosophy of progress’,which was a legacy of the leap of Science, seems to have left its impacable impact on the psyche of the philosopher Heidegger.

9. Students of philosophy must be charitable to Heidegger, for he frequently reminds men, wherever or whoever or whatever they may be, “that a question still haunts us like a specter: What for?-Whither?-And what then?”.[81]

10. In conclusion, it cannot but be observed that an astute student of Indian philosophy would be inclined to affirm that Heidegger’s philosophy on ‘Sein’ and ‘Dasein’ is the German version of the Indian Vedantic philosophy in general and especially of Sree Ramanujacharya, the expounder of ‘qualified monism’.

VII. ‘Author of ours’ - Know him

1. Who was this author of ours?. Let us know him through the following short biographical sketch.

2. Martin Heidegger, the philosopher, who developed existential phenomenology and is widely regarded as one of the most original philosophers of the 20^th century, was born in Messkirch, Germany, on September 22, 1889. His father was a sexton of a village church. The boy Heidegger used to accompany his father as the latter went to the church to toll the curfew or the church bell. Heidegger acknowledges that he got the fundamental concept of ‘Time’ through the chimes of the Church bells. He studied Roman Catholic theology for a few years. He gave it up on grounds of ill- health. Then he pursued philosophy at the University of Freiburg. As a student of Edmund Husserl , he learned the principles of ‘phenomenology’. After periods of teaching at the Universities of Freiburg and Marburg, he became a professor of philosophy at Freiburg as the successor to Husserl.

3. He has authored mainly the following books: ‘Being and Time’, ‘What is Metaphysics’, ‘On the Essence of Truth’, ‘Plato’s Doctrine of Truth’, ‘Introduction to Metaphysics’, ‘What is called Thinking?’ , ‘What is Philosophy?’, ‘The Question of Being’, ‘Discourse on Thinking’ etc. .Besides, he has published a number of articles. As noted earlier, ‘Being and Time’ is his magnum opus.

4. Heidegger’s original treatment of themes like human finitude, death, authenticity etc. led many observers to associate him with existentitalism. Very true, his works had a tremendous influence on the French existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre. Heidegger, however, repudiated existentialist interpretations of his works or any connection with that philosophy.

5. His association with Nazis resulted in his dismissal from the University. He spent the subsequent years almost in retirement. He died on May 26, 1976, at his native village Messkirch.

6. A question on the personality and achievements of Martin Heidegger confronts the students. Was Heidegger archaic or prophetic? Prejudices apart, the answer would be that like ‘Janus’ of the ancient Greek myth, he was two faced. For, he combined in himself, the questions of philosophy, asked by the ancient thinkers, like Heraclitus and Parmenides, with those to be enquired into by the philosophers of future. Undoubtedly the problem of ‘being’ and ‘its’ relation with the ‘Being’ was the alpha and omega of his enquiry. To a considerable extent, he has interpreted and brought out a salutary relation between them. His is the credit, and ours is the fortune, that he was successful to awaken the mind to a remembrance of the that other realm which is its proper milieu.

ORUVATTITHARA, O.M.MATHEW ORUVATTITHARA

NAGAMPADAM, (TF 0481 584795),

KOTTAYAM, PIN:686 001, KERALA.

28/11/2002

Email: raborvat@sancharnet.in

BIBLIOGRAPHY

DURANT WILL	The Story of Philosophy Earnest Benn Ltd., London 1928
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA	15^th Edn. Vol.5 & Vol.9
GREGORIUS PAUL	Quest for Certainty OrthodoxSeminary,Kottayam,Kerala1976
HEIDEGGER MARTIN	An Introduction to Metaphysics. Tr. Ralph Manheim, Doubleday & Co.Inc.,NewYork 1964
HEIDEGGER MARTIN	Being and Time Tr. John Macquarrie and Eduard Robinson, Harper and Row, NewYork 1962
HEIDEGGER MARTIN	What is Philosophy Tr. Kluback and Wilde, College & University Press, New Haven, Conn
MACQUARRIE JOHN MACQUARRIE JOHN	Martin Heidegger, Lutterworth Press, London 1968 Principles of Christian Theology, SCM Press Ltd., London, 1974
MRIDANANDA SWAMI	Svetasvataropanisad (Mal), Sri. Ramakrishna Mutt, Trichur, Kerala
NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPAEDIA	1967 Edn. Vol. 11
RANGANATHANANDA SWAMI	The Message of the Upanisads, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay 1987

[1] PAUL GREGORIUS. Quest for Certainty (Orthodox Seminary, Kottayam.1976), 6

[2] Encyclopaedia Britannica,15 th Edn, Vol.5, (No Date), 801

[4] MARTIN HEIDEGGER.Being and Time, Tr. John Macquarrie and Eduard Robinson (Harper &Row

N.Y.,1962), 21

[9] MARTIN HEIDEGGER. An Introduction to Metaphysic, Tr.Ralph Manheim.(Doubleday & Co.Inc.

N.Y.1961), 1

[10] Ibid, 2

[13] MARTIN HEIDEGGER.Being and Time, Op. Cit, 27

[14] MARTIN HEIDEGGER. An Introduction to Metaphysics, Op. Cit, 4

[16] Ibid, 14

[17] Encyclopaedia Britannica, Op.Cit, 801

[19] MARTIN HEIDEGGER. An Introduction to Metaphysics, Op Cit, 96

[20] MARTIN HEIDEGGER. What is Philosophy, Tr.Kluback and Wilde,(College & University Press

New Haven.Conn.), 8

[21] MARTIN HEIDEGGER. What is Philosophy, Op. Cit, 49

[23] JOHN MACQUARRIE. Martin Heidegger, (Lutterworth Press. London 1968), Preface

[24] MARTIN HEIDEGGER. An Introduction to Metaphysics, Op. Cit, 106

[26] Ibid, 47

[27] MARTIN HEIDEGGER. What is Philosophy, Op.Cit, 10

[28] MARTIN HEIDEGGER. An Introduction to Metaphysics, Op.Cit, 11

[30] MARTIN HEIDEGGER. What is Philosophy, Op.Cit, 8

[31] MARTIN HEIDEGGER. An Introduction to Metaphysics, Op.Cit, 52

[32] MARTIN HEIDEGGER. What is Philosophy, Op.Cit, 10

[33] PAUL GREGORIUS. Quest for Certainty, Op.Cit, 7

[36] PAUL GREGORIUS. Quest for Certainty, Op.Cit, 7

[37] JOHN MACQUARRIE. Martin Heidegger, Op.Cit, 7

[39] MARTIN HEIDEGGER. An Introduction to Metaphysics, Op.Cit, 1

[43] MARTIN HEIDEGGER. Being and Time, Op. Cit, 343

[44] MARTIN HEIDEGGER. What is Philosophy, Op. Cit, 13

[45] MARTIN HEIDEGGER. Being and Time, Op. Cit, 39

[47] MARTIN HEIDEGGER. Being and Time, Op. Cit, 374

[48] MARTIN HEIDEGGER. An Introduction to Metaphysics, Op. Cit, 149

[49] MARTIN HEIDEGGER. What is Philosophy, Op. Cit, 9

[51] MARTIN HEIDEGGER. What is Philosophy, Op.Cit, 14

[52] MARTIN HEIDEGGER. Being and Time, Op.Cit, 191

[56] JOHN MACQUARRIE. Martin Heidegger, Op. Cit, Preface

[58] Encyclopaedia Britannica,15^th Edn, Vol.9, 361

[59] New Catholic Encyclopaedia,1967Edn, Vol.11, 257

[60] MARTIN HEIDEGGER. Being and Time, Op. Cit, 67

[65] MARTIN HEIDEGGER. Being and Time, Op. Cit, 68

[67] MARTIN HEIDEGGER. Being and Time, Op. Cit, 99

[71] MARTIN HEIDEGGER. Being and Time, Op. Cit, 171

[72] MARTIN HEIDEGGER. Being and Time, Op. Cit, 171

[73] MARTIN HEIDEGGER. Being and Time, Op. Cit, 183

[74] JOHN MACQUARRIE. Martin Heidegger, Op.Cit, 33

[76] Katha Upanishad, Chp 1, Sec.3, Stanza 14

[77] JOHN MACQUARRIE. Martin Heidegger, Op.Cit, 49

[78] Encyclopaedia Britannica, Op.Cit, Vol.5, 801

[79] JOHN MACQUARRIE. Principles of Christian Theology,ix, (SCM Press Ltd., London, 1974)

[80] MARTIN HEIDEGGER. What is Philosophy, Op. Cit, Introduction, 11

[81] MARTIN HEIDEGGER. Introduction to Metaphysics, Op. Cit, 31