Heidegger's Theory

In Being and Time, Martin Heidegger attempts to answer the question of Being through disposition, understanding, and discourse. This disposition or “state of mind,” intertwines with an understanding of future possibilities and creates a discourse, that possesses the potential for communication and language. Moreover, Heidegger employs the Dasien Theory to addresses how humans interact with entities, through the three dimensions of care: thrownness, projection and fallenness (cite). This interaction provides a cohesive historical reference, as well as a present tense, and enables the individual to seize the numerous future possibilities based on these interpretations of entities. Heidegger’s theory is valid in that it describes how most humans

This disposition describes the mood, not as an intentional physical or emotional state, but rather, as a determinant of what is important to us at certain points in time. Heidegger employs Dasein to describe how thrownness, which is primarily the past, plays an integral part in disposition. More specifically, Dasein utilizes historical context to ascribe meaning to the interaction between humans and entities. This meaning is then used as a basis to evaluate future possibilities. These possibilities are not entities, but instead, a way of being. However, it is important to note that Dasein is not based on chronological time, but rather an “original time” (cite). Thus, historical context is not necessarily in the past, and projection of possibilities is not necessarily in the future. Furthermore, Dasein always uses the combination of past, present, and future in determining the interpretation of interactions between humans and entities (cite). Consequently, there is constant struggle for balance between the past and projections for the future. However, Heidegger asserts that the possibilities for the future override thrownness, and calls this prioritization, “ahead-of-itself” (p.279 /

In addition, linguistic capacities are linked to our ontological engagement with the world but are often, misunderstood (class notes, cite). Another issue with language and communication is “fallenness,” and inauthenticity. Consequently, Heidegger believes that it is important to remain authentic and not be drawn in by the power of the dominant voices. Heidegger’s theory of being emphasizes disposition, understanding, and discourse, and presents a sound, sequential theory of existence. One that can and should be adopted as a basic understanding of being. Nevertheless, this approach fails to consider the absence of historical context. How does one use thrownness if such knowledge isn’t available, such as in the context of death? A person can experience the loss and grief from a death, but not know what it is like from first-hand experience. Therefore, how can one make projections based on interpretations that don’t exist?

Another issue with Heidegger’s theory is that it seems to assert projections based on the assumption of a predictable future, with very little variables. However, I find the concept of a stagnant future difficult to accept. Therefore, I wonder if the projections, based on past interpretations, are still relevant for the