Heidegger's Notion Of Authenticity

Alper ÖZESMER Martin Heidegger’s notion of ‘Death’ in Being and Time ABSTRACT: The purpose of this paper is to consider the relation between death and authenticity, and accordingly to investigate the position of ‘death’ in Martin Heidegger’s understanding of authentic existence in line with his existential analysis of Dasein. This exploration is inspired by the emphasis on concept of authenticity in Heidegger’s overall philosophy and is based on the perspective that his project the grasp of Dasein as a whole through the analysis of ‘Being’ as being-towards-death. The main argument of this paper is that Dasein’s authenticity can be revealed only the acceptance of one’s own death, -namely its being-towards-death.

According to Heidegger, there are 2 modes of existence which are authentic and inauthentic existence. An example for authentic existence is when you realize that you are choosing a life style of your own . While for inauthentic existence, an example would be when you simply fulfil a pre-designed role in your family or society1. Heidegger’s main argument on his book “Being and Time” is to raise the issue of being which he referred to as “Dasein”.

Natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. The idea of human rights is also closely related to that of natural rights, some acknowledge no difference between the two, regarding them as synonymous, while others choose to keep the terms separate to eliminate association with some features traditionally associated with natural rights. Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an important legal instrument enshrining one conception of natural rights into international soft law. Natural rights were traditionally viewed as exclusively negative right, where as human rights also comprise positive rights.

Modernist worldview Modernity includes a search for absolute, unquestionable, rational certainty, based on logic and evidence alone. (Of course, many “modern philosophers” admitted such may be ultimately impossible for finite beings, but that didn’t stop them from holding it as an ideal and continuing the search.) [1] Post-modern worldview Postmodern is simply the rejection of certainty in the synthetic realm, even in science. Postmodern is also defined by the belief that all truth claims are infected by “belief”. That is, there is no such thing as “a view from nowhere.”

In this part, according to Neal (1990) “he is not interested in merely the existence of God, but in the sheer necessity of God's existence”. Anselm begins by stating that God cannot be conceived not to exist. He continues by arguing that “that than which a greater cannot be conceived (God)”, cannot be conceived not to exist, as being ‘conceived not to exist’ is ultimately less perfect than being ‘conceived to exist.’ This essentially boils down to the fact that ‘existing’ as a concept is more perfect that ‘not existing’, which leads Anselm to the conclusion that God must exist in reality. The alternative would exist of a being greater than God, who would ascend above God and pass judgement over him, and since God is the most perfect conceivable being, this is impossible.

God must exist in reality as well as in the understanding. This reading of the argument is amply confirmed by the final paragraph, and this is the way he proves that it is true: “Therefore, if that than which nothing greater could be conceived exists in the understanding alone, the very being than which nothing greater could be conceived is one than which a better can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible.

Ontological argument by St. Anselm in favour of God’s existence: The ontological argument of the existence of the God is entirely based upon the fact of contradicting the non-existence of God. The original statement on which St. Anselm’s ontological argument of God is based upon is that "God is that than which no greater can be conceived. " The statement means that there cannot be a being which can be greater than God and there cannot be a being which can be imagined greater than a God as God is treated as an ultimate perfect being that can be imagined. One of the prominent feature that God has is perfection i.e., something can’t be called a God unless it’s completely perfect.

Rather, what Hume tries to prove is that no empirical evidence or reason gives a solid foundation for such natural beliefs. He endorses the idea that causal relations are neither synthetic nor

Both within Deontological and Utilitarian Ethics, the regulatory ideal implies an objective inherent value which justifies the possibility of making moral judgements. Nietzsche marks a shift in paradigm by reframing the regulatory ideal and implicitly the fundaments of its justification. To better understand what Nietzsche’s Moral Philosophy is, we must also take a brief overview of his Philosophical paradigm. For the purposes of this paper I will only use and highlight particular aspects, as a full, in-depth description would risk a deviation from the point which needs to be made.

In this context, it means that not only will the theory be unable to expect or explain such cognitive errors, it might also be incapable to describe the intentional states of a person executing these mistakes (Stich as cited in Funkhouser, n.d.). Since there is no guarantee that human beings are rational agents at all time, Dennett’s intentional system theory is false as the theory is only valid when the intentional stance has been adopted towards an entity in which we believe that after adopting the following theory, we’re only able to foretell and define its behaviour by giving treatment to it as though it were a rational agent with activities are administered by its views and needs (Kind,

(1) If the Identity of Indiscernibles is true, then there cannot be perfect duplicates (2) There can be perfect duplicates (3) The Identity of Indiscernibles is false Often, two objects are referred to as indiscernible if and only if they share exactly the same properties. However, one must be cautious of such a definition of indiscernibility because of its ambiguity. According to the Identity of Indiscernibles,

that there exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or lesser evil. ”(Rowe 370) In that case, the theists counterargument is as solid as that of the atheists’. With the G.E. Moore shift, the theists are able to argue for God’s existence without denying the premise presented by the atheists.