SZ:7-8 – Dasein como o manter-se imerso no nada de Ser

Se a pergunta pelo ser deve ser expressamente feita e executada na plena transparência para si mesma, então, segundo as elucidações dadas até agora, sua elaboração exige a explicação dos modos de dirigir o olhar ao ser, de entender e apreender conceitualmente seu sentido, a preparação da possibilidade da escolha correta do ente exemplar e a elaboração do genuíno modo-de-acesso a esse ente. Olhar para, entender e conceituar, escolher, aceder a são comportamentos constitutivos do (45) perguntar e assim são eles mesmos modi-de-ser de um determinado ente, do ente que nós, os perguntantes, somos cada vez nós mesmos. Por conseguinte, elaborar a questão-do-ser significa tornar transparente um ente – o perguntante – em seu ser. O perguntar dessa pergunta, como modus-de-ser de um ente, é ele mesmo essencialmente determinado pelo perguntando, por aquilo de que nele se pergunta – pelo ser ¹. Esse ente que somos cada vez nós mesmos e que tem, entre outras possibilidades-de-ser, a possibilidade-de-ser do perguntar, nós o apreendemos terminologicamente como Dasein. Fazer expressamente e de modo transparente a pergunta pelo sentido de ser exige uma adequada exposição prévia de um ente (Dasein) quanto ao seu ser.^{2 3}

Mas não é manifesto o círculo em que tal empresa incorre ? Ter de determinar primeiramente um ente em seu ser e, sobre esse fundamento, querer fazer a pergunta pelo ser, que é isto senão andar em círculo ? Já não se “pressupõe” na elaboração da pergunta aquilo que só a resposta deve trazer? Ob-jeções formais como a do “círculo na prova” que sempre podem ser facilmente apresentadas no âmbito da pesquisa-de-princípios são sempre estéreis para os concretos caminhos da investigação. Nada acrescentam ao entendimento-de-coisa, impedindo que se penetre no campo da investigação.

Mas no modo como se faz a pergunta, que foi antes caracterizado, não há em geral círculo algum. O ente pode ser determinado em seu ser, não sendo preciso para isso que o conceito explícito do sentido do ser já deva estar disponível. Se assim não fosse, não poderia haver até agora nenhum conhecimento ontológico, cuja existência de fato não pode ser negada. O “ser” foi sem dúvida “pressuposto” até agora em toda ontologia, mas não como conceito disponível – não como aquilo (47) que é buscado como tal. O “pressupor” o ser tem o caráter de uma vista prévia do ser, a partir da qual o ente já-dado é provisoriamente articulado em seu ser. Essa vista dirigida ao ser provém do mediano entendimento-do-ser em que já nos movemos sempre e que pertence afinal ⁴ à constituição essencial do Dasein ele mesmo. Tal “pressupor” nada tem a ver com a posição de um princípio não demonstrado, a partir do qual se deriva dedutivamente uma série de proposições. No fazer a pergunta pelo sentido do ser em geral não pode haver um “círculo na prova”, porque na resposta à pergunta não se trata de fazer uma fundamentação dedutiva, mas de um mostrar que põe-em-liberdade um fundamento.

Na pergunta pelo sentido de ser não há um “círculo na prova” mas, ao contrário, uma notável “referência retroativa e projetiva” do perguntando (ser) ao perguntar como modus-de-ser de um ente. A essencial afetabilidade do perguntar por seu perguntando pertence ao sentido mais próprio da questão-do-ser. Mas isso significa somente que o ente do caráter do Dasein tem uma relação com a questão-do-ser ela mesma – que talvez seja até mesmo assinalada. Mas isso já não mostra um determinado ente em sua precedência-de-ser e já não mostra também o ente exemplar que deve exercer a função de primário perguntável da questão-do-ser?⁵ As discussões havidas até agora não mostraram a precedência do Dasein, nem foi decidido sobre sua possível ou mesmo necessária função como ente em primeiro lugar perguntável. Em compensação, foi anunciado todavia algo assim como uma precedência do Dasein. (STFC:45, 47)

Si la question de l’être doit être expressément posée et si elle doit, en se posant, être pleinement lucide sur elle-même, alors il découle des éclaircissements donnés jusqu’à maintenant qu’une élaboration de cette question exige que soit expliquée la manière de regarder dans la direction de l’être, d’entendre et de saisir conceptuellement son sens; elle exige que soit ménagée la possibilité de bien choisir l’étant pris pour exemple, elle réclame tout le travail requis pour frayer l’accès menant spécialement à cet étant. Regarder vers, entendre et concevoir, choisir, accéder à, sont des comportements constitutifs (30) du questionnement en même temps que des modes d’être d’un étant bien précis, cet étant que nous, les questionnants, sommes chaque fois nous-mêmes. Qui dit élaboration de la question de l’être dit par conséquent qu’un étant, celui qui questionne, se rend transparent à lui-même en son être. Dès lors que poser cette question est un mode d’être d’un étant, le questionnement qu’elle instaure doit lui-même l’essentiel de sa détermination au questionné qui est visé en lui, à l’être ⁶. Cet étant que nous sommes chaque fois nous-mêmes et qui a, entre autres possibilités d’être, celle de questionner, nous lui faisons place dans notre terminologie sous le nom de Dasein. Pour poser expressément et en toute clarté la question du sens de être, il est requis d’en passer d’abord par une explication d’un étant (Dasein) en considérant justement son être.⁷

Mais pareille entreprise ne tombe-t-elle pas, de toute évidence, dans un cercle? Devoir d’abord déterminer un étant en son être et, sur cette base, ne vouloir poser qu’ensuite la question de l’être, qu’est-ce d’autre que tourner en rond? Ne « présuppose »-t-on pas déjà pour élaborer la question ce que seule la réponse à cette question serait en mesure de fournir? Des objections de forme – et rien ne prête mieux le flanc à l’accusation de « cercle dans le raisonnement» que l’investigation au niveau des principes – sont, quand on en est à examiner les voies concrètes de la recherche, toujours stériles. Sur le fond de la question elles ne font rien comprendre de plus et elles empêchent d’avancer dans le champ de la recherche.

Mais factivement poser la question, telle qu’elle a été définie, ne comporte pas le moindre cercle. (Un) étant peut être déterminé dans son être sans que, pour ce faire, le concept explicite du sens de être doive être déjà disponible. Sinon, il n’aurait encore pu y avoir aucune [SZ:8] connaissance ontologique; or personne ne peut sérieusement nier qu’il y en ait factivement une. Il est vrai que, jusqu’à nouvel ordre, en toute ontologie l’« être » est « présupposé » mais non pas en tant que concept disponible – non comme ce en tant que quoi il est recherché. « Présupposer » l’être consiste dans ces conditions en un aperçu anticipé sur l’être, grâce auquel l’étant préalablement donné sera provisoirement articulé en son être. Cet aperçu sur l’être indiquant la direction à suivre naît de l’entente courante de l’être dans laquelle nous nous mouvons toujours déjà et qui relève en fin de compte ⁸ de (31) ce qui constitue l’essence du Dasein lui-même. «Présupposer» ainsi n’a rien à voir avec la mise en place initiale d’un principe indémontré d’où serait ensuite tirée par déduction une série de propositions. Telle qu’elle se pose, la question du sens de être ne peut comporter nul « cercle dans le raisonnement » parce que, pour donner à la question sa réponse, il ne s’agit pas d’établir une base de départ pour des déductions mais au contraire de dégager le fond à partir duquel elle se manifestera.

Il n’y a pas du tout de « cercle dans le raisonnement » là où la question s’enquiert du sens de être mais bien une remarquable réciprocité de rapport, sorte de « va-et-vient » du questionné (être) au questionnement en tant qu’il est mode d’être d’un étant. Que le questionnement soit atteint au plus intime de lui-même par son questionné appartient au sens le plus propre de la question de l’être. Mais tout ceci revient à dire : l’étant qui se caractérise comme Dasein a un rapport à la question même de l’être – peut-être bien un rapport insigne. Mais autant dire alors qu’un étant bien précis est déjà désigné dans sa primauté d’être et n’est-ce pas là l’étant exemplaire auquel revient prioritairement le rôle d’être l’interrogé de la question de l’être qui s’est d’avance donné ⁹? Tout ce qui a été expliqué jusqu’ici ne permet ni d’assigner la primauté au Dasein, ni de rien trancher quant à sa possible, voire sa nécessaire aptitude à remplir la fonction de l’étant à interroger en priorité. Mais une certaine primauté du Dasein s’est quand même annoncée. (ETFV:30-32]

If the question about Being is to be explicitly formulated and carried through in such a manner as to be completely transparent to itself, then any treatment of it in line with the elucidations we have given requires us to explain how Being is to be looked at, how its meaning is to be understood and conceptually grasped; it requires us to prepare the way for choosing the right entity for our example, and to work out the genuine way of access to it. Looking at something, understanding and conceiving it, choosing, access to it — all these ways of behaving are constitutive for our inquiry, and therefore are modes of Being for those particular entities (27) which we, the inquirers, are ourselves. 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 inquired about — namely, Being. This entity which each of us is himself and which includes inquiring as one of the possibilities of its Being, we shall denote by the term “Dasein”.¹⁰ If we are to formulate our question explicitly and transparently, we must first give a proper explication of an entity (Dasein), with regard to its Being.

Is there not, however, a manifest circularity in such an undertaking? If we must first define an entity in its Being, and if we want to formulate the question of Being only on this basis, what is this but going in a circle? In working out our question, have we not ‘presupposed’ something which only the answer can bring? Formal objections such as the argument about ‘circular reasoning’, which can easily be cited at any time in the study of first principles, are always sterile when one is considering concrete ways of investigating. When it comes to understanding the matter at hand, they carry no weight and keep us from penetrating into the field of study.

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 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.

In the question of the meaning of Being there is no ‘circular reasoning’ but rather a remarkable ‘relatedness backward or forward’ which what we are asking about (Being) bears to the inquiry itself as a mode of Being of an entity. Here what is asked about has an essential pertinence to the inquiry itself, and this belongs to the ownmost meaning (eigensten Sinn) of the question of Being. This only means, however, that there is a way—perhaps even a very special one—in which entities with the character of Dasein are related to the question of Being. But have we not thus demonstrated that a certain kind of entity has a priority with regard to its Being? And have we not thus presented that entity which shall serve as the primary example to be interrogated in the question of Being? So far our discussion has not demonstrated Dasein’s priority, nor has it shown decisively whether Dasein may possibly or even necessarily serve as the primary entity to be interrogated. But indeed something like a priority of Dasein has announced itself. (BTMR:26-28)

If the question of being is to be explicitly formulated and brought to complete clarity concerning itself, then the elaboration of this question requires, in accord with what has been elucidated up to now, explication of the ways of regarding being, of understanding and conceptually grasping its meaning, preparation of the possibility of the right choice of the exemplary being, and elaboration of the genuine mode of access to this being (Seienden). Regarding, understanding and grasping, choosing, and gaining access to, are constitutive attitudes of inquiry and are thus themselves modes of being of a particular being, of the being we inquirers ourselves in each case are. Thus to work out the question of being means to make a being-one who questions-transparent in its being. Asking this question, as a mode of being of a being, is itself essentially determined by what is asked about in it-being. This being (Seiende), which we ourselves in each case are and which includes inquiry among the possibilities of its being, we formulate terminologically as Dasein. The explicit and lucid formulation of the question of the meaning of being requires a prior suitable explication of a being (Dasein) with regard to its being.

But does not such an enterprise fall into an obvious circle? To have to determine beings in their being beforehand and then on this foundation first pose the question of being-what else is that but going around in circles? In working out the question do we not “presuppose” something that only the answer can provide? Formal objections such as the argument of “circular reasoning,” an argument that is always easily raised in the area of investigation of principles, are always sterile when one is weighing concrete ways of investigating. They do not offer anything to the understanding of the issue and they hinder penetration into the field of investigation.

But in fact there is no circle at all in the formulation of our question. Beings can be determined in their being without the explicit concept of the meaning of being having to be already available. If this were not so there could not have been as yet any ontological knowledge. And probably no one would deny the factual existence of such knowledge. It is true that “being” [“Sein”] is “presupposed” in all previous ontology, but not as an available concept-not as the sort of thing we are seeking. “Presupposing” being has the character of taking a preliminary look at being in such a way that on the basis of this look beings that are already given are tentatively articulated in their being. This guiding look at being grows out of the average understanding of being in which we are always already involved and which ultimately) belongs to the essential constitution of Dasein itself. Such “presupposing” has nothing to do with positing a principle from which a series of propositions is deduced. A “circle in reasoning” cannot possibly lie in the formulation of the question of the meaning of being, because in answering this question it is not a matter of grounding by deduction, but rather of laying bare and exhibiting the ground.

“Circular reasoning” does not occur in the question of the meaning of being. Rather, there is a notable “relatedness backward or forward” of what is asked about (being) (Sein) to asking as a mode of being of a being. The way what is questioned essentially engages our questioning belongs to the innermost meaning of the question of being. But this only means that the being that has the character of Dasein has a relation to the question of being itself, perhaps even a distinctive one. But have we not thereby demonstrated that a particular being has a priority with respect to being and that the exemplary being that is to function as what is primarily interrogated is pregiven?* In what we have discussed up to now neither has the priority of Dasein been demonstrated nor has anything been decided about its possible or even necessary function as the primary being to be interrogated. But certainly something like a priority of Dasein has announced itself. (GA2JS)

Wenn die Frage nach dem Sein ausdrücklich gestellt und in voller Durchsichtigkeit ihrer selbst vollzogen werden soll, dann verlangt eine Ausarbeitung dieser Frage nach den bisherigen Erläuterungen die Explikation der Weise des Hinsehens auf Sein, des Verstehens und begrifflichen Fassens des Sinnes, die Bereitung der Möglichkeit der rechten Wahl des exemplarischen Seienden, die Herausarbeitung der genuinen Zugangsart zu diesem Seienden. Hinsehen auf, Verstehen und Begreifen von, Wählen, Zugang zu sind konstitutive Verhaltungen des Fragens und so selbst Seinsmodi eines bestimmten Seienden, des Seienden, das wir, die Fragenden, je selbst sind. Ausarbeitung der Seinsfrage besagt demnach: Durchsichtigmachen eines Seienden — des fragenden — in seinem Sein. Das Fragen dieser Frage ist als Seinsmodus eines Seienden selbst von dem her wesenhaft bestimmt, wonach in ihm gefragt ist — vom Sein. Dieses Seiende, das wir selbst je sind und das unter anderem die Seinsmöglichkeit des Fragens hat, fassen wir terminologisch als Dasein. Die ausdrückliche und durchsichtige Fragestellung nach dem Sinn von Sein verlangt eine vorgängige angemessene Explikation eines Seienden (Dasein) hinsichtlich seines Seins.

Fällt aber solches Unterfangen nicht in einen offenbaren Zirkel? Zuvor Seiendes in seinem Sein bestimmen müssen und auf diesem Grunde dann die Frage nach dem Sein erst stellen wollen, was ist das anderes als das Gehen im Kreise? Ist für die Ausarbeitung der Frage nicht schon »vorausgesetzt«, was die Antwort auf diese Frage allererst bringen soll? Formale Einwände, wie die im Bezirk der Prinzipienforschung jederzeit leicht anzuführende Argumentation auf den »Zirkel im Beweis«, sind bei Erwägungen über konkrete Wege des Untersuchens immer steril. Für das Sachverständnis tragen sie nichts aus und hemmen das Vordringen in das Feld der Untersuchung.

Faktisch liegt aber in der gekennzeichneten Fragestellung überhaupt kein Zirkel. Seiendes kann in seinem Sein bestimmt werden, ohne daß dabei schon der explizite Begriff vom Sinn des Seins verfügbar sein müßte. Wäre dem nicht so, dann könnte es bislang noch keine ontologische Erkenntnis geben, deren faktischen Bestand man wohl nicht leugnen wird. Das »Sein« wird zwar in aller bisherigen Ontologie »vorausgesetzt«, aber nicht als verfügbarer Begriff –, nicht als das, als welches es Gesuchtes ist. Das »Voraussetzen« des Seins hat den Charakter der vorgängigen Hinblicknahme auf Sein, so zwar, daß aus dem Hinblick darauf das vorgegebene Seiende in seinem Sein vorläufig artikuliert wird. Diese leitende Hinblicknahme auf das Sein entwächst dem durchschnittlichen Seinsverständnis, in dem wir uns immer schon bewegen, und das am Ende zur Wesensverfassung des Daseins selbst gehört. Solches »Voraussetzen« hat nichts zu tun mit der Ansetzung eines Grundsatzes, daraus eine Satzfolge deduktiv abgeleitet wird. Ein »Zirkel im Beweis« kann in der Fragestellung nach dem Sinn des Seins überhaupt nicht liegen, weil es in der Beantwortung der Frage nicht um eine ableitende Begründung, sondern um aufweisende Grund-Freilegung geht.

Nicht ein »Zirkel im Beweis« liegt in der Frage nach dem Sinn von Sein, wohl aber eine merkwürdige »Rück- oder Vorbezogen-heit« des Gefragten (Sein) auf das Fragen als Seinsmodus eines Seienden. Die wesenhafte Betroffenheit des Fragens von seinem Gefragten gehört zum eigensten Sinn der Seinsfrage. Das besagt aber nur: das Seiende vom Charakter des Daseins hat zur Seinsfrage selbst einen – vielleicht sogar ausgezeichneten – Bezug. Ist damit aber nicht schon ein bestimmtes Seiendes in seinem Seinsvorrang erwiesen und das exemplarische Seiende, das als das primär Befragte der Seinsfrage fungieren soll, vorgegeben? Mit dem bisher Erörterten ist weder der Vorrang des Daseins erwiesen, noch über seine mögliche oder gar notwendige Funktion als primär zu befragendes Seiendes entschieden. Wohl aber hat sich so etwas wie ein Vorrang des Daseins gemeldet. (SZ:7-8)