Everydayness (Alltäglichkeit), 16-17, 43-44, 50-51,117-125 (§ 26), 126-130, (§ 27), 166-180 (I.V.B), 181, 233-235, 252-255 (§ 51), 255-260 (§ 71), et passim; is temporality, 372 (BTMR)
Moreover, the Dasein is to be understood in its way to be, to begin with, not in a kind of being which is somehow emphatic and exceptional. The Dasein is not to be taken by setting some sort of aim and purpose for it, neither as ‘homo’ nor even in the light of some idea of ‘humanity.’ Instead, its way to be must be brought out in its nearest EVERYDAYNESS, the factic Dasein in the how of its factic ‘to-be-it.’ But this does not mean that we now give a kind of biographical account of a particular Dasein as this individual Dasein in its everyday life. We are reporting no particular everyday life but we are seeking the EVERYDAYNESS of everyday life, the fact in its facticity, not the everyday of the temporally particular Dasein but to be the EVERYDAYNESS for its particular while as Dasein is what matters to us. GA20EN §18
This task of conceiving Dasein in its EVERYDAYNESS does not mean describing the Dasein at a primitive stage of its being. EVERYDAYNESS is in no way identical with primitiveness. EVERYDAYNESS is rather a distinctive how of the being of Dasein, even when and precisely when this Dasein has an inherently highly developed and differentiated culture at its disposal. On the other hand, even primitive Dasein in its way has possibilities of exceptional, non-everyday, and unusual being, which means that it also has in its turn a specific way of EVERYDAYNESS. But often the consideration of primitive forms of Dasein can more readily provide directions in seeing and verifying certain phenomena of Dasein, inasmuch as here the danger of concealment through theory, which Dasein itself characteristically supplies rather than something else outside of Dasein, is not yet so powerful. But it is just here that an especially critical attitude is needed, for what we know from primitive stages of Dasein is at first purely historically, geographically, and in world view furthest from us and alien to our culture. What is thus imparted to us about ‘primitive life’ is already pervaded by a particular interpretation. Indeed, it is an interpretation which cannot be based on an actual fundamental analysis of Dasein itself but which works with categories of man and human relationships taken from some sort of psychology. The fundamental analysis of Dasein is just the right presupposition for an understanding of the primitive, and not the reverse: there is no reason to believe that the sense of this entity can in some way be assembled by putting together bits of information about primitive Dasein. This point is being made because of the fact that we shall on occasion, but only sparingly, resort to primitive Dasein to exemplify certain phenomena. The exemplification must of course remain subject to this critical consideration, it is no more than an exemplification. The contents and the structures being evoked here are drawn from the matters and from envisaging the entity itself which we are. GA20EN §18
Dasein in its EVERYDAYNESS, a highly complicated phenomenon, regards and defines it more authentically when a life is more differentiated. When we analyze Dasein in its EVERYDAYNESS and its being in EVERYDAYNESS, this should not be construed as saying also that we want to derive the remaining possibilities of the being of Dasein from EVERYDAYNESS, that we want to carry out a genetic consideration on the assumption that every other possibility of the being of Dasein could be derived from EVERYDAYNESS. EVERYDAYNESS persists everywhere and always every day; each is a witness as to how Dasein has to be and how it is in EVERYDAYNESS, even though in a different way. It is easy to foresee that EVERYDAYNESS is a specific concept of time. GA20EN §18
Such possible modes of in-being belonging to EVERYDAYNESS include: working on something with something, producing something, cultivating and caring for something, putting something to use, employing something for something, holding something in trust, giving up, letting something get lost, interrogating, discussing, accomplishing, exploring, considering, determining something. In a way still to be clarified, these modes of in-being have the character of concern, in the sense of taking something into one’s care, having it in one’s care. Even the pertinent modifications of not being concerned, neglecting, relaxing, refraining belong in principle to the same kind of being. Even when I do nothing and merely doze and so tarry in the world, I have this specific being of concerned being-in-the-world—it includes every lingering with and letting oneself be affected. GA20EN §19
Strictly regarded, there is also no coincidence, and this is important, between the environmental distances fixed at any given time and the spaced intervals. The ‘nearest’ is really not that from which I am separated by the slightest interval, it is rather that which is removed from me in a certain average range of reach and vision. Because Dasein as being-in-the-world is re-motive, it moves in an ‘environment’ which is always removed from it by a certain “elbow-room,” with a measure of free play and leeway. I always look and listen beyond what is nearest of all, from the perspective of intervals. Seeing and hearing are distance senses because Dasein as re-motive dwells especially in them. For the person who wears glasses, which in the objective terms of intervals are nearest to him, these glasses are nonetheless always further removed from him than the table at which he is seated. The ‘nearest’ in interval is not at all what is encountered immediately in EVERYDAYNESS. On the other hand, the sense of touch and its extensive function cannot be cited as a counterinstance precisely because the explicit function of grasping and touching is predominantly not that of bringing near. This is clearest in a very elementary action of preoccupation, of “going-about,” that of walking. GA20EN §25
This co-Dasein of others right in EVERYDAYNESS is characteristic of in-being as absorption in the world under concern. The others are there with me in the world under concern, in which everyone dwells, even when they are not bodily perceived as on hand. If others were encountered merely as things, perhaps they would not really be there. All the same, their being-there-with in the environing world is wholly immediate, inconspicuous, obvious, similar to the character of the presence of world-things. GA20EN §26
Being-with-one-another, which combines the structure of being of my own temporally particular Dasein as being-with and the mode of being of others as co-Dasein, must be understood in terms of this basic constitution of being-in-the-world. Here it should be noted that the closest kind of encounter with another lies in the direction of the very world in which concern is absorbed. Our procedure is therefore not to lay down some concept of man and then maintain, since man presumably has to be a ‘social being,’ that the structure of being-with belongs to Dasein. Instead, from the phenomenal state of the EVERYDAYNESS of Dasein itself it becomes evident that not only the others but remarkably ‘one oneself’ is there in what one attends to everyday. GA20EN §26
Being-with as a basic constitution of Dasein first has to be understood wholly within its mode of being of EVERYDAYNESS. We have thus characterized the world as defined by the structure of meaningfulness. This means that the world can always be understood by the Dasein which is in it in very different degrees of expressness and definiteness. For since being-in-the-world is itself understanding, and understanding is not a kind of knowledge but a primary kind of being of being-in-the-world itself, and being-with-one-another is conceived as an original constitution of Dasein, it follows that the latter is eo ipso an understanding of one another. Such an understanding operates in a milieu of changing familiarity and understandability. Even a savage transplanted among us exercises his understanding in this world, even though it can be utterly strange to him in its detail. GA20EN §26
The apparently presuppositionless approach which says, ‘First there is only a subject, and then a world is brought to it,’ is far from being critical and phenomenally adequate. So is the assumption which holds that first a subject is given only for itself and the question is, how does it come to another subject? Since only the lived experiences of my own interior are first given, how is it possible for me to apprehend the lived experiences of others as well, how can I “feel my way into” them, empathize with them? It is assumed that a subject is encapsulated within itself and now has the task of empathizing with another subject. This way of formulating the question is absurd, since there never is such a subject in the sense it is assumed here. If the constitution of what is Dasein is instead regarded without presuppositions as in-being and being-with in the presuppositionless immediacy of EVERYDAYNESS, it then becomes clear that the problem of empathy is just as absurd as the question of the reality of the external world. GA20EN §26
Thus the exposition of this new character of in-being—being-with—specifically in its mode of being drawn from the world, also presses toward the question from which we started: Who is this Dasein in its EVERYDAYNESS? We must not succumb to the deception that when we say, “Dasein is in each instance mine”—the being which I myself am—, the answer to the question of the who of Dasein in its EVERYDAYNESS is also already given. Precisely because the Who asks about the who of its being, it codetermines itself with regard to the being of the Dasein which in its manner of being is in each instance what it is. This phenomenological explication takes the Dasein in its mode of being of EVERYDAYNESS, in concerned absorption with one another in the world. Dasein as being-with is this being-with-one-another. The who of the being of being-with-one-another therefore receives its answer from this being-with-one-another. The who of EVERYDAYNESS is the ‘Anyone’ [das ‘Man’]. GA20EN §26
It was already suggested that in the “first of all and most of all” of everyday concern, the temporally particular Dasein is always what it pursues. One is what one does. The everyday interpretation of Dasein takes its horizon of interpretation and naming from what is of concern in each particular instance. One is a shoemaker, tailor, teacher, banker. Here Dasein is something which others also can be and are. The others are environmentally there with us, their co-Dasein is taken into account, not only because what is of concern has the character of being useful and helpful for others, but also because others provide the same things of concern. In both respects to the others, the being-with with them stands in a relationship to them: with regard to the others and to what the others pursue, one’s own concern is more or less effective or useful; in relation to those who provide the exact same things, one’s own concern is regarded as more or less outstanding, backward, appreciated, or the like. The others are not only simply on hand in the concern for what one provides with, for, and against them; rather, concern as concern constantly lives in the concern [Sorge] over being different from them, even if only to equalize that difference; it may be that one’s own Dasein is falling behind the others and wants to catch up, as it were, or that it has an advantage over them and is intent on keeping them down. This peculiar structure of being, which governs our being with others in the everyday manner of concern, shall be called the phenomenon of apartness—Dasein’s concern over being apart—regardless of how conscious we are of it. On the contrary, it is just when everyday concern is not aware of it that this kind of being with the others is perhaps much more stubbornly and primordially there. There are human beings, for example, who do what they do purely out of ambition, without any bearing on what they are pursuing. All of these particulars here of course involve no moral judgments or the like. They only characterize movements in the raw sense, so to speak, which Dasein makes in its EVERYDAYNESS. GA20EN §26
Now insofar as Dasein in its concern for its world is being-with and as such is absorbed with the others in the world, this common world is at the same time the world which each one of us has placed in his care as a public environment which one puts to use and takes into account and moves about in. Here we move with others in modes of being which every other is just as I am, where every distinction in occupation and profession collapses. The being-with-one-another dissolves one’s own Dasein totally into the mode of being of the others. The Dasein allows itself to be carried along by others in such a way that the others in their distinctiveness vanish even more. In the sphere of its possibilities of being, each is totally the other. It is here that the peculiar ‘subject’ of EVERYDAYNESS—the Anyone—first has its total domination. The public being-with-one-another is lived totally from this Anyone. We take pleasure and enjoy ourselves as one takes pleasure and we read and judge about literature as one judges, we hear music as one hears music, we speak about something as one speaks. GA20EN §26
But now it must be noted phenomenologically that this ‘nobody,’ which I have just exhibited in bold outlines from various sides, is in fact not nothing. The Anyone is an undeniable, demonstrable phenomenon of Dasein itself as being-with in the world. It cannot be said that, because there are no categories for it and because one is of the opinion that only something like a chair really is, this Anyone is actually nothing. Instead, the concept of being must itself be directed toward this undeniable phenomenon. The Anyone is not nothing, but it is also not a worldly thing which I can see, grasp, and weigh. The more public this Anyone is, the less comprehensible it is and the less it is nothing, so little that it really constitutes the who of one’s own Dasein in each instance in EVERYDAYNESS. GA20EN §26
This peculiar mode of being, which characterizes EVERYDAYNESS in the Anyone as concerned absorption with one another in the world, now also brings with it an everyday kind of self-interpretation of Dasein. Since Dasein encounters itself primarily in the world, and the public itself defines the goals and views of Dasein in terms of the world of common concern, all the fundamental concepts and expressions which Dasein first forms for itself will also probably be obtained with an eye to the world in which it is absorbed. This state of affairs, which can be very clearly shown in the history of language, nonetheless does not mean, as has been thought, that languages are first oriented only toward material things and that the so-called ‘primitive’ languages hardly get beyond the view of material thinghood. This is a total confusion of the interpretation of speaking and self-interpretation. As we have yet to see, language and speech themselves belong to Dasein as being-in-the-world and being-with-one-another. And we shall see how on this basis certain self-interpretations of Dasein, certain concepts which Dasein forms of itself, are necessarily prefigured, without being able to say that these concepts are primitive. When these phenomenal structures of being-with-one-another in the Anyone and of absorption in the world are kept in mind, then there is no longer anything puzzling in the fact that Dasein, insofar as it explicitly refers to itself and articulates itself, employs characteristic meanings and interpretive senses. GA20EN §26
Discoveredness belongs to being-in-the-world constitutively. This means that Dasein as concern is essentially a situated [befindliches] being, a being disposed toward the disclosed world. Disclosing a world is always already a self-finding. The original belonging-together of disposedness and disclosedness of world must be brought home phenomenally: Dasein does not first find itself by itself in order then from there to look around itself for a world. Rather, disposition is itself a character of in-being, which means always already being in a world. The most immediate phenomenal concretion of this structure of in-being in discoveredness must, as always, be sought in the EVERYDAYNESS of being with one another. GA20EN §28
In what follows, we shall first consider the discourse of EVERYDAYNESS. Language is the possibility of the being of Dasein such that language makes Dasein manifest in its discoveredness by way of interpretation and thus by way of meaning. Dasein is thus at least already exposed in the way we understand its constitution in regard to in-being and being-with. The structures already considered are necessary structures for the essential structure of language itself, but they are not yet sufficient. GA20EN §28
Just as hearing is constitutive of discourse, so also is silence. Only an entity whose being is defined by the ability to discourse can also be silent. But this carries the phenomenal implication that silence as a mode of being of discourse is a particular way of articulating oneself about something to others. He who is silent in being with one another can more authentically manifest and ‘give to understand,’ that is, discourse in the original sense of its being, than the man of many words. Talking a lot does not in the least guarantee that the about-which of discourse becomes manifest sooner and more fully. On the contrary, talking a lot not only can uncover nothing but can actually cover things up and reduce everything to incomprehensibility, to babble. But silence still does not merely mean being mute. For the mute person has the propensity for discourse and expression. He would speak if he could. A mute person still has not proven without further ado that he can be silent. But the silent person could speak if he wanted to. No more than the mute person does the one who tends to say little need to prove that he is and can be silent. Rather, one can be silent precisely in speaking, and only in speaking can one be silent in a genuine way. If one never says anything, he can never be silent. Because the possibility of manifesting lies in silence, but silence as a mode of enactment of discourse cultivates understanding, brings the discoveredness of Dasein to fruition [zeitigt] with understanding, silence in being with one another can summon and call Dasein back to its ownmost being. And it can do this just when Dasein in the EVERYDAYNESS of its being has allowed itself to be taken in by the world being talked over and by the discourse about it. Because discursive talk in the beginning is always manifest in talking to one another in public—in communication—, the summoning of Dasein to itself and to its original and genuine disposition must in the end have the mode of discourse and interpretation that is silence. To be able to be silent, one must at the same time have something to say. In other words, it is precisely when discoveredness is a genuine and rich disclosedness of the world that it can then evoke a response in a disposition of Dasein which has the mode of discoveredness of reticence. Reticence is a way of being disposed which does not so much conceal and only conceal. Rather it gives precedence to being, prior to all talk about it and counseling over it, and this precisely in concerned preoccupation and being with one another. Genuine ability to hear comes from such reticence, and genuine being-with-one-another constitutes itself in this ability. Thus, discourse becomes visible as a mode of being of Dasein in the two phenomena of hearing and silence. GA20EN §28
Idle talk is itself posited with Dasein and its being. Like hearing and silence, it is a constitutive phenomenon given with discourse as a mode of the being of Dasein. Idle talk is not restricted to oral communication in speaking; much more idle talk today comes from what is written. Repetitive talk here is not talking from hearsay but hearing and talking from what is picked up by reading. Such reading takes place characteristically without understanding the subject matter, but in such a way that the reader—there are purported to be such readers in the sciences as well—acquires the possibility of dealing with the matters with great skill without ever having seen them. Something being said here to some extent acquires an intrinsic authoritative character. That it is said at all and that something definite is said is sufficient to assume that what is said is true and to proceed to repeat it and pass it along on the strength of its being said. What is talked about in idle talk is meant only in an indeterminate emptiness, which is why discourse about it is disoriented. Accordingly, when men who have to deal with a matter do so solely on the basis of the idle talk about it, they bring the various opinions, views, and perceptions together on an equal basis. In other words, they do so on the basis of what they have picked up from reading and hearing. They pass along what they have read and heard about the matter without any sensitivity for the distinction of whether or not that opinion or their own is actually relevant to the matter. Their care in discovering does not apply to the matter but to the discourse. And idle talk, which rules precisely on the basis of a lack of basis, provides such discovery with the consolidation of its rule as a way of being in the interpretation of Dasein. The groundlessness of idle talk does not bar its entry into the public arena but directly promotes it. For idle talk is just the possibility of interpreting something without first making the matter one’s own. Idle talk, which anyone can pick up, dispenses us from the task of genuine understanding. One can talk along and be taken seriously in idle talk. This free-floating interpretation, which belongs to everyone and no one, dominates EVERYDAYNESS, and Dasein grows up in such a temporally particular interpretation, and more and more into it. This interpretation of the world and of Dasein, which is prevalent and consolidated as idle talk, we shall call the everyday way in which Dasein has already been interpreted. GA20EN §28
Idle talk covers up more than it uncovers. It covers up especially by retarding uncovering, by way of its inherent presumption of already having uncovered. Because Dasein first dwells in the Anyone, which in turn is interpreted in idle talk, the tendency to cover up appears right in the tendency of Dasein’s being toward the Anyone. Since this covering up installs itself in opposition to every express intention, manifest in it and in the tendency toward it is a structure of Dasein’s being which is given with Dasein itself. The covering up which Dasein temporalizes from itself manifests the peculiar kind of being which we call the deviation of Dasein from itself—deviation from its authentic original disposition and disclosedness. Insofar as Dasein in its being as EVERYDAYNESS deviates from itself, this kind of being may be called falling. GA20EN §29
The term ‘falling’ designates a movement of the being of the happening of Dasein and once again should not be taken as a value judgment, as if it indicated a base property of Dasein which crops up from time to time, which is to be deplored and perhaps eliminated in advanced stages of human culture. Like discoveredness, being-with and in-being, falling refers to a constitutive structure of the being of Dasein, in particular a specific phenomenon of in-being, in which Dasein first constantly has its being. If we orient ourselves once again in the ‘between’ of world and Dasein, then the dwelling in the Anyone and in the idle talk of this being is in an uprooted state of suspension. But this uprooting is just what constitutes the solid EVERYDAYNESS of Dasein, [and idle talk is] one way of falling in which Dasein loses itself. GA20EN §29
Concerned preoccupation in EVERYDAYNESS can take a rest, whether it be relaxing in the form of a break or finishing up with what needs to be taken care of. Taking a rest and relaxing is a mode of concern. For care does not vanish in rest, only now in relaxing, the world is no longer appresented for the achievement of concern. The world is no longer encountered in circumspection but rather in the relaxed tarrying-in. In such a tarrying, the seeing of circumspection becomes free, no longer bound by specific relations of reference as these determine our encounter of the world of work. This liberated seeing, which becomes free from circumspection, as a modification of concern is still care, where care now slackens to a liberated condition of merely seeing and perceiving the world. GA20EN §29
The important thing is to regard all of these phenomena always as characteristic and primary modes of the being of everyday Dasein. It is not my intention to use what I have just said for moral applications or anything of that sort. My intention is only and can only be to display these phenomena as structures of Dasein, in order then, by starting from them—this is in fact the drift of all of my considerations—to see Dasein not in terms of any sort of theory of man, but to see the basic determination of its being directly in terms of the EVERYDAYNESS closest to it, and to proceed from there back to the fundamental structures themselves. Now none of these phenomena—this is characteristic precisely of the Anyone—is in any way conscious or intentional. The obviousness, the matter-of-course way in which this movement of Dasein comes to pass also belongs to the manner of being of the Anyone. Because the movements of being which Dasein so to speak makes in the Anyone are a matter of course and are not conscious and intentional, this means simply that the Anyone does not discover them, since the discoveredness which the Anyone cultivates is in fact a covering up. GA20EN §29
This selfsameness must not be understood in such a way that the essential structural moments of the of-which and the about-which would become fused in dread. The selfsameness rather only serves to show that the essence of dread is Dasein itself. Dasein occurs twice, so to speak, in the disposition of dread. This formulation of the phenomenon is of course the very worst way of putting it, its only sense being to give us a preliminary indication of a peculiar state of affairs, namely, that Dasein is an entity in whose being its own being is at issue. But is this actually a phenomenal composition of the being of Dasein itself? For it seems to be directly contradicted by the phenomenon of falling, the flight of Dasein from itself. It became evident in falling that EVERYDAYNESS moves Dasein away from itself. It therefore cannot be said that Dasein is intimately involved with itself in its EVERYDAYNESS. This, however, is still a blind and unphenomenological way of arguing. GA20EN §30
The interpretation of Dasein in the EVERYDAYNESS of being opened the prospect for understanding the fundamental constitutive states of this entity. Structures like being-in-the-world, in-being and being-with, the Anyone, discoveredness, understanding, falling, and care came to light. The latter phenomenon at the same time reveals the unifying root of this manifold of structures. We have constantly reiterated that these structures are co-original. To say that they are co-original means that they always already belong with and to the phenomenon of care. They are ingrained in it even when they do not come to the foreground. These structures are therefore not optional additions to something which might from the start be akin to care without them. Nor do we have something which could be shaped into what we have called the phenomenon of care by putting these structures together. But if our inquiry is pointed toward the being of Dasein, as we have constantly done here, then whenever Dasein is interrogated, it is always already meant in the co-originality of these structures. Thus, when I phenomenologically envisage discoveredness or the Anyone or falling, the unity of these structures is always co-intended. GA20EN §32
To secure the phenomenological concept of death means to make visible the way of being of Dasein in which it can be its utmost possibility. In this connection it should now be noted that the relationship of being to a possibility which an entity itself is—like Dasein here and its death—is itself a being-possible. Being a possibility essentially means being capable of this being-possible. But this implies that Dasein can—it is after all essentially an ‘I can’—be this its utmost possibility either in this or that way. But it is at the same time constantly the possibility of its death, because death is constitutive of the being of Dasein. Dasein is this possibility even in its EVERYDAYNESS. Since we have drawn out the constitution of the being of Dasein first of all in its EVERYDAYNESS, we want to start from it in our subsequent investigation and ask how Dasein is its death in the immediate mode of being of its EVERYDAYNESS. This analysis becomes the proof of how death for the most part can be in EVERYDAYNESS. From this characterization we shall at the same time be able to read off certain structures of the mode of being of death. We shall consider two points: 1) the kind of being of Dasein as EVERYDAYNESS toward its utmost possibility, death; 2) we ask, as what does the being of death in this everyday-being show itself to him? GA20EN §34
The EVERYDAYNESS of Dasein is defined by absorption in the Everyone. In the public arena of being-with-one-another, death is an established everyday encounter. This encounter is interpreted as ‘one also dies some day.’ This ‘Everyone dies’ harbors an ambiguity in itself, for this Everyone is just what never dies and never can die. Dasein says ‘Everyone dies’ because this means ‘No one dies,’ namely, not I myself. Death is something in being-with-one-another for which the Everyone already has a suitable interpretation ready. In ‘Everyone dies’ death is from the start leveled to a possibility of being which in a sense is no one’s possibility. Death, in terms of what it truly is, is thus from the start driven away. ‘Everyone dies’ is the interpretation in which Dasein re-labels its ownmost possibility for the public way of having things interpreted for everyday circulation, thereby driving its own-most possibility away from itself. GA20EN §34
There is a further ambiguity in thus driving it away. ‘Everyone dies, but for the time being death won’t come.’ One speaks as if death first had to come from somewhere, while Dasein itself is in each instance already this its possibility. Driving away the authentic being of death at the same time has the character of tranquilization. The public self-interpretation of Dasein goes so far that in being-with-one-another one even cheers the dying person up by telling him that he will soon be up and around again, that is to say, back in the EVERYDAYNESS of Dasein. The average worldly self-interpretation of Dasein hopes thereby to console the other, to come into a genuine being-with-one-another with him, where however such consolations only serve to push Dasein back again into becoming absorbed in the world, so that the specific situation of its being now really remains concealed to it. GA20EN §34
The same public way of having things interpreted now also from the start regulates the public kind of being toward death, in the way that it has also already decided about what is to be held in thinking about death. Thinking about death is publicly regarded as cowardly dread and a gloomy flight from the world. The public does not permit the courage for dread in the face of death to come up, but hastens to forget it while at the same time interpreting this action as a form of self-security and superiority of Dasein opposed to this ostensible gloominess of life. These are the characters which mark the way of being of the Everyone, and it should be clear that what appears here is once again the way of EVERYDAYNESS in its being, that is, in the mode of being of falling. GA20EN §34
In making death ambiguous, the Everyone not only drives it away in regard to what it is. Driving it away is at the same time tranquilizing and has the character of estrangement, since not thinking about death now becomes a concern. In not wanting to think about death, the EVERYDAYNESS of Dasein is in constant flight in the face of death. But here is where it becomes phenomenally evident that death does not come from somewhere but has gained a hold in Dasein itself. In not wanting to think about it, Dasein bears witness to its being in death itself. Conversely, death is not first in Dasein because it by chance thinks about it. That before which Dasein flees in its falling flight in EVERYDAYNESS, even without expressly thinking about death, is nothing other than Dasein itself, specifically insofar as death is constitutive of it. GA20EN §34
The uncertainty with which Dasein covers up its original certainty of being is at the same time supported by the calculation and determination that now—according to a general estimate, which is the way one tends to see things—death in any case cannot be anticipated. One in a sense reckons that death can come and thereby overlooks that this indefiniteness, whereby death can come at any moment, belongs essentially to its certainty. This indefiniteness as to when death comes positively refers to the possibility that it can come at any moment. It in no way weakens the certainty of its coming, but rather gives it its sting and the character of an utmost and constant possibility which Dasein is. These two characters, that death is absolutely certain, and that this certainty is at the same time indefinite, constitute the manner of being of this possibility of death. Death is the utmost, though indefinite, yet certain possibility in which Dasein itself stands before itself, but at the same time the possibility before which Dasein flees in EVERYDAYNESS, so that it makes this possibility ambiguous. This means that EVERYDAYNESS does not have the most authentic and most original relationship to death, inasmuch as a character of the being of death is disregarded or covered up by it, namely, that death is in each instance my death. GA20EN §34
The utmost possibility of death as the being of Dasein, in which it is wholly by and of itself, has to be seized in Dasein itself. But insofar as Dasein is in EVERYDAYNESS, that means that it must be called back from this EVERYDAYNESS to the utmost possibility of the ‘I am.’ Dasein’s running forward toward death at every moment means Dasein’s drawing back from the Everyone by way of a self-choosing. GA20EN §34
The time which we know everyday and which we take into account is, more accurately viewed, nothing but the Everyone to which Dasein in its EVERYDAYNESS has fallen. The being in being-with-one-another in the world, and that also means in discovering with one another the one world in which we are, is being in the Everyone and a particular kind of temporality. GA20EN §36