Do we in our time have an answer to the question of what we really mean by the word ‘being’? Not at all. So it is fitting that we should raise anew the question of the meaning of Being. But are we nowadays even perplexed at our inability to understand the expression ‘Being’? Not at all. So first of all we must reawaken an understanding for the meaning of this question. Our aim in the following treatise is to work out the question of the meaning of Being and to do so concretely. Our PROVISIONAL aim is the Interpretation of time as the possible horizon for any understanding whatsoever of Being. BTMR Epigraph
Science in general may be defined as the totality established through an interconnection of true propositions. This definition is not complete, nor does it reach the meaning of science. As ways in which man behaves, sciences have the manner of Being which this entity – man himself – possesses. This entity we denote by the term “Dasein”. Scientific research is not the only manner of Being which this entity can have, nor is it the one which lies closest. Moreover, Dasein itself has a special distinctiveness as compared with other entities, and it is worth our while to bring this to view in a PROVISIONAL way. Here our discussion must anticipate later analyses, in which our results will be authentically exhibited for the first time. [SZ:12] BTMR §4
By indicating Dasein’s ontico-ontological priority in this PROVISIONAL manner, we have grounded our demonstration that the question of Being is ontico-ontologically distinctive. But when we analysed the structure of this question as such (Section 2), we came up against a distinctive way in which this entity functions in the very formulation of that question. Dasein then revealed itself as that entity which must first be worked out in an ontologically adequate manner, if the inquiry is to become a transparent one. But now it has been shown that the ontological analytic of Dasein in general is what makes up fundamental ontology, so that Dasein functions as that entity which in principle is to be interrogated beforehand as to its Being. BTMR §4
If our purpose is to make such an anthropology possible, or to lay its ontological foundations, our Interpretation will provide only some of the ‘pieces’, even though they are by no means inessential ones. Our analysis of Dasein, however, is not only incomplete; it is also, in the first instance, PROVISIONAL. It merely brings out the Being of this entity, without Interpreting its meaning. It is rather a preparatory procedure by which the horizon for the most primordial way of interpreting Being may be laid bare. Once we have arrived at that horizon, this preparatory analytic of Dasein will have to be repeated on a higher and authentically ontological basis. BTMR §5
The two characteristics of Dasein which we have sketched – the priority of ‘existentia’ over essentia, and the fact that Dasein is in each case mine [die Jemeinigkeit] – have already indicated that in the analytic of this entity we are facing a peculiar phenomenal domain. Dasein does not have the kind of Being which belongs to something merely present-at-hand within the world, nor does it ever have it. So neither is it to be presented thematically as something we come across in the same way as we come across what is present-at-hand. The right way of presenting it is so far from self-evident that to determine what form it shall take is itself an essential part of the ontological analytic of this entity. Only by presenting this entity in the right way can we have any understanding of its Being. No matter how PROVISIONAL our analysis may be, it always requires the assurance that we have started correctly. BTMR §9
With this kind of approach one remains blind to what is already tacitly implied even when one takes the phenomenon of knowing as one’s theme in the most PROVISIONAL manner: namely, that knowing is a mode of Being of Dasein as Being-in-the-world, and is founded ontically upon this state of Being. But if, as we suggest, we thus find phenomenally that knowing is a kind of Being which belongs to Being-in-the-world, one might object that with such an Interpretation of knowing, the problem of knowledge is nullified; for what is left to be asked if one presupposes that knowing is already ‘alongside’ its world, when it is not supposed to reach that world except in the transcending of the subject? In this question the constructivist ‘standpoint’, which has not been phenomenally demonstrated, again comes to the fore; but quite apart from this, what higher court is to decide whether and in what sense there is to be any problem of knowledge other than that of the phenomenon of knowing as such and the kind of Being which belongs to the knower? BTMR §13
In our PROVISIONAL Interpretation of that structure of Being which belongs to the ready-to-hand (to ‘equipment’), the phenomenon of reference or assignment became visible; but we merely gave an indication of it, and in so sketchy a form that we at once stressed the necessity of uncovering it with regard to its ontological origin. It became plain, moreover, that assignments and referential totalities could in some sense become constitutive for worldhood itself. Hitherto we have seen the world lit up only in and for certain definite ways in which we concern ourselves environmentally with the ready-to-hand, and indeed it has been lit up only with the readiness-to-hand of that concern. So the further we proceed in understanding the Being of entities within-the-world, the broader and firmer becomes the phenomenal basis on which the world-phenomenon may be laid bare. [SZ:77] BTMR §17
If the existential analytic of Dasein is to retain clarity in principle as to its function in fundamental ontology, then in order to master its PROVISIONAL task of exhibiting Dasein’s Being, it must seek for one of the most farreaching and most primordial possibilities of disclosure – one that lies in Dasein itself. The way of disclosure in which Dasein brings itself before itself must be such that in it Dasein becomes accessible as simplified in a certain manner. With what is thus disclosed, the structural totality of the Being we seek must then come to light in an elemental way. BTMR §39
Within the framework of this investigation, our ontological characterization of the end and totality can be only PROVISIONAL. To perform this task adequately, we-must not only set forth the formal structure of end in general and of totality in general; we must likewise disentangle the structural variations which are possible for them in different realms – that is to say, deformalized variations which have been put into relationship respectively with definite kinds of entities as ‘subject-matter’, and which have had their character Determined in terms of the Being of these entities. This task, in turn, presupposes that a sufficiently unequivocal and positive Interpretation shall have been given for the kinds of Being which require that the aggregate of entities be divided into such realms. But if we are to understand these ways of Being, we need a clarified idea of Being in general. The task of carrying out in an appropriate way the ontological analysis of end and totality breaks down not only because the theme is so far-reaching, but because there is a difficulty in principle: to master this task successfully, we must presuppose that precisely what we are seeking in this investigation – the meaning of Being in general – is something which we have found already and with which we are quite familiar. BTMR §48
If we are to bring back into our phenomenological purview the phenomena at which we have arrived in our preparatory analysis, an allusion to the stages through which we have passed must be sufficient. Our definition of “care” emerged from our analysis of the disclosedness which constitutes the Being of the ‘there’. The clarification of this phenomenon signified that we must give a PROVISIONAL Interpretation of Being-in-the-world – the basic state of Dasein. Our investigation set out to describe Being-in-the-world, so that from the beginning we could secure an adequate phenomenological horizon as opposed to those inappropriate and mostly inexplicit ways in which the, nature of Dasein has been determined beforehand ontologically. Being-in-the-world was first characterized with regard to the phenomenon of the world. And in our explication this was done by characterizing ontico-ontologically what is ready-to-hand and present-at-hand ‘in’ the environment, and then bringing within-the-world-ness into relief, so that by this the phenomenon of worldhood in general could be made visible. But understanding belongs essentially to disclosedness; and the structure of worldhood, significance, turned out to be bound up with that upon which understanding projects itself – namely that potentiality-for-Being for the sake of which Dasein exists. BTMR §67
From this PROVISIONAL analysis of equipment which belongs to history and which is still present-at-hand though somehow ‘past’, it becomes plain that such entities are historical only by reason of their belonging to the world. But the world has an historical kind of Being because it makes up an ontological attribute of Dasein. It may be shown further that when one designates a time as ‘the past’, the meaning of this is not unequivocal; but ‘the past’ is manifestly distinct from one’s having been, with which we have become acquainted as something constitutive for the ecstatical unity of Dasein’s temporality. This, however, only makes the enigma ultimately more acute; why is it that the historical is determined predominantly by the ‘past’, or, to speak more appropriately, by the character of having-been, when that character is one that temporalizes itself equiprimordially with the Present and the future? BTMR §73
The resoluteness in which Dasein comes back to itself, discloses current factical possibilities of authentic existing, and discloses them in terms of the heritage which that resoluteness, as thrown, takes over. In one’s coming back resolutely to one’s thrownness, there is hidden a handing down to oneself of the possibilities that have come down to one, but not necessarily as having thus come down. If everything ‘good’ is a heritage, and the character of ‘goodness’ lies in making authentic existence possible, then the handing down of a heritage constitutes itself in resoluteness. The more authentically Dasein resolves – and this means that in anticipating death it understands. itself unambiguously in terms of its ownmost distinctive possibility – the more unequivocally does it choose and find the possibility of its existence, and the less does it do so by accident. Only by the anticipation of death is every accidental and ‘PROVISIONAL’ possibility driven out. Only Being-free for death, gives Dasein its goal outright and pushes existence into its finitude. Once one has grasped the finitude of one’s existence, it snatches one back from the endless multiplicity of possibilities which offer themselves as closest to one – those of comfortableness, shirking, and taking things lightly – and brings Dasein into the simplicity of its fate [Schicksals]. This is how we designate Dasein’s primordial historizing, which lies in authentic resoluteness and in which Dasein hands itself down to itself, free for death, in a possibility which it has inherited and yet has chosen. [SZ:384] BTMR §74
Dilthey’s friend, Count Yorck, gives unambiguous expression to Dilthey’s ownmost philosophical tendency in the communications between them, when he alludes to ‘our common interest in understanding historicality’ (italicized by the author). Dilthey’s researches are only now becoming accessible in their full scope; if we are to make them our own, we need the steadiness and concreteness of coming to terms with them in principle. This not the place [Ort] for discussing in detail the problems which moved him, or how he was moved by them. We shall, however, describe in a PROVISIONAL way some of Count Yorck’s central ideas, by selecting characteristic passages from the letters. [SZ:399] BTMR §77
In the development of this ordinary conception, there is a remarkable vacillation as to whether the character to be attributed to time is ‘subjective’ or ‘Objective’. Where time is taken as being in itself, it gets allotted pre-eminently to the ‘soul’ notwithstanding. And where it has the kind of character which belongs to ‘consciousness’, it still functions ‘Objectively’. In Hegel’s Interpretation of time both possibilities are brought to the point where, in a certain manner, they cancel each other out. Hegel tries to define the connection between ‘time’ and ‘spirit’ in such a manner as to make intelligible why the spirit, as history, ‘falls into time’. We seem to be in accord with Hegel in the results of the Interpretation we have given for Dasein’s temporality and for the way world-time belongs to it. But because our analysis differs in principle from his in its approach, and because its orientation is precisely the opposite of his in that it aims at fundamental ontology, a short presentation of Hegel’s way of taking the relationship between time and spirit may serve to make plain our existential-ontological Interpretation of Dasein’s temporality, of world-time and of the source of the ordinary conception of time, and may settle this in a PROVISIONAL manner. BTMR §78
World-time, moreover, is also ‘more subjective’ than any possible subject; for it is what first makes possible the Being of the factically existing Self – that Being which, as is now well understood, is the meaning of care. ‘Time’ is present-at-hand neither in the ‘subject’ nor in the ‘Object’, neither ‘inside’ nor ‘outside’; and it ‘is’ ‘earlier’ than any subjectivity or Objectivity, because it presents the condition for the very possibility of this ‘earlier’. Has it then any ‘Being’? And if not, is it then a mere phantom, or is it something that has ‘more Being’ [“sciender”] than any possible entity? Any investigation which goes further in the direction of questions such as these, will come up against the same ‘boundary’ which has already set itself up to our PROVISIONAL discussion of the connection between truth and Being. In whatever way these questions may be answered in what follows – or in whatever way they may first of all get primordially formulated – we must first understand that temporality, as ecstatico-horizonal, temporalizes something like world-time, which constitutes a within-time-ness of the ready-to-hand and the present-at-hand. But in that case such entities can never be designated as ‘temporal’ in the strict sense. Like every entity with a character other than that of Dasein, they are non-temporal, whether they Really occur, arise and pass away, or subsist ‘ideally’. [SZ:420] BTMR §80
But factically there is no circle at all in formulating our question as we have described. One can determine the nature of entities in their Being without necessarily having the explicit concept of the meaning of Being at one’s disposal. Otherwise there could have been no ontological knowledge heretofore. One would hardly deny that factically there has been such knowledge. Of course ‘Being’ has been presupposed in all ontology up till now, but not as a concept at one’s disposal – not as the sort of thing we are seeking. This ‘presupposing’ of Being has rather the character of taking a look at it beforehand, so that in the light of it the entities presented to us get PROVISIONALLY Articulated in their Being. This guiding [SZ:8] activity of taking a look at Being arises from the average understanding of Being in which we always operate and which in the end belongs to the essential constitution of Dasein itself. Such ‘presupposing’ has nothing to do with laying down an axiom from which a sequence of propositions is deductively derived. It is quite impossible for there to be any ‘circular argument’ in formulating the question about the meaning of Being; for in answering this question, the issue is not one of grounding something by such a derivation; it is rather one of laying bare the grounds for it and exhibiting them. BTMR §2
Here we have merely indicated PROVISIONALLY that an Interpretation of this entity is confronted with peculiar difficulties grounded in the kind of Being which belongs to the object taken as our theme and to the very behaviour of so taking it. These difficulties are not grounded in any shortcomings of the cognitive powers with which we are endowed, or in the lack of a suitable way of conceiving – a lack which seemingly would not be hard to remedy. BTMR §5
We shall point to temporality as the meaning of the Being of that entity which we call “Dasein”. If this is to be demonstrated, those structures of Dasein which we shall PROVISIONALLY exhibit must be Interpreted over again as modes of temporality. In thus interpreting Dasein as temporality, however, we shall not give the answer to our leading question as to the meaning of Being in general. But the ground will have been prepared for obtaining such an answer. BTMR §5
In PROVISIONALLY characterizing the object which serves as the theme of our investigation (the Being of entities, or the meaning of Being in general), it seems that we have also delineated the method to be employed. The task of ontology is to explain Being itself and to make the Being of entities stand out in full relief. And the method of ontology remains questionable in the highest degree as long as we merely consult those ontologies which have come down to us historically, or other essays of that character. Since the term “ontology” is used in this investigation in a sense which is formally broad, any attempt to clarify the method of ontology by tracing its history is automatically ruled out. BTMR §7
In the question about the meaning of Being, what is primarily interrogated is those entities which have the character of Dasein. The preparatory existential analytic of Dasein must, in accordance with its peculiar character, be expounded in outline, and distinguished from other kinds of investigation which seem to run parallel (Chapter 1.) Adhering to the procedure which we have fixed upon for starting our investigation, we must lay bare a fundamental structure in Dasein: Being-in-the-world (Chapter 2). In the interpretation of Dasein, this structure is something ‘a priori’; it is not pieced together, but is primordially and constantly a whole. It affords us, however, various ways of looking at the items which are constitutive for it. The whole of this structure always comes first; but if we keep this constantly in view, these items, as phenomena, will be made to stand out. And thus we shall have as objects for analysis: the world in its worldhood (Chapter 3), Being-in-the-world as Being-with and Being-one’s-Self (Chapter 4), and Being-in as such (Chapter 5). By analysis of this fundamental structure, the Being of Dasein can be indicated PROVISIONALLY. Its existential meaning is care (Chapter 6). BTMR §8
In the ‘in-order-to’ as a structure there lies an assignment or reference of something to something. Only in the analyses which are to follow can the phenomenon which this term ‘assignment’ indicates be made visible in its ontological genesis. PROVISIONALLY, it is enough to take a look phenomenally at a manifold of such assignments. Equipment – in accordance with its equipmentality – always is in terms of [aus] its belonging to other equipment: ink-stand, pen, ink, paper, blotting pad, table, lamp, furniture, windows, doors, room. These ‘Things’ never show themselves proximally as they are for themselves, so as to add up to a sum of realia and fill up a room. What we encounter as closest to us (though not as something taken as a theme) is the room; and we encounter it not as something ‘between four walls’ in a geometrical spatial sense, but as equipment for residing. Out of this the ‘arrangement’ emerges, and it is in this that any ‘individual’ item of equipment shows itself. Before it does so, a totality of equipment has already been discovered. [SZ:69] BTMR §15
By demonstrating that assertion is derived from interpretation and understanding, we have made it plain that the ‘logic’ of the logos is rooted in the existential analytic of Dasein; and PROVISIONALLY this has been sufficient. At the same time, by knowing that the logos has been Interpreted in a way which is ontologically inadequate, we have gained a sharper insight into the fact that the methodological basis on which ancient ontology arose was not a primordial one. The logos gets experienced as something present-at-hand and Interpreted as such, while at the same time the entities which it points out have the meaning of presence-at-hand. This meaning of Being is left undifferentiated and uncontrasted with other possibilities of Being, so that Being in the sense of a formal Being-something becomes fused with it simultaneously, and we are unable even to obtain a clear-cut division between these two realms. BTMR §33
For instance, we can say, “The last quarter is still outstanding until the moon gets full”. The “not-yet” diminishes as the concealing shadow disappears. But here the moon is always present-at-hand as a whole already. Leaving aside the fact that we can never get the moon wholly in our grasp even when it is full, this “not-yet” does not in any way signify a not-yet-Being-together of the parts which belongs to the moon, but pertains only to the way we get it in our grasp perceptually. The “not-yet” which belongs to Dasein, however, is not just something which is PROVISIONALLY and occasionally inaccessible to one’s own experience or even to that of a stranger; it ‘is’ not yet ‘actual’ at all. Our problem does not pertain to getting into our grasp the “not-yet’ which is of the character of Dasein; it pertains to the possible Being or not-Being of this “not-yet”. Dasein must, as itself, become – that is to say, be – what it is not yet. Thus if we are to be able, by comparison, to define that Being of the “not-yet” which is of the character of Dasein, we must take into conslderation entities. to whose kind of Being becoming belongs. BTMR §48
Not only does the phenomenon of temporality which we have laid bare demand a more widely-ranging confirmation of its constitutive power, but only through such confirmation will it itself come into view as regards the basic possibilities of temporalizing. The demonstration of the possibility of Dasein’s state of Being on the basis of temporality will be designated in brief – though only PROVISIONALLY – as “the ‘temporal’ Interpretation”. BTMR §66
The most obvious ambiguity of the term ‘history’ is one that has often been noticed, and there is nothing ‘fuzzy’ about it. It evinces itself in that this term may mean the ‘historical actuality’ as well as the possible science of it. We shall PROVISIONALLY eliminate the signification of ‘history’ in the sense of a “science of history” (historiology). BTMR §73
So far we have only had to understand PROVISIONALLY how Dasein, as grounded in temporality, is, in its very existing, concerned with times and how, in such interpretative concern, time makes itself public for Being-in-the-world. But the sense in which time ‘is’ if it is of the kind which is public and has been expressed, remains completely undefined, if indeed such time can be considered as being at all. Before we can make any decision as to whether public time is ‘merely subjective’ or ‘Objectively actual’, or neither of these, its phenomenal character must first be determined more precisely.’ BTMR §80
PROVISIONALLY it was enough for us to point out the general ‘connection’ of the use of clocks with that temporality which takes its time. Just as the concrete analysis of astronomical time-reckoning in its full development belongs to the existential-ontological Interpretation of how Nature is discovered, the foundations of historiological and calendrical ‘chronology’ can be laid bare only within the orbit of the tasks of analysing historiological cognition existentially. BTMR §80