THE
CONCEPT OF UNDERSTATING ACCORDING TO
MARTIN
HEIDEGGER
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Life
Martin
Heidegger was born in the year1889 at Messkirch, Germany. He wanted to become a
catholic priest but discontinued his clerical studies in the year1911. He got
married in the year 1917 to a girl namely Elfride Petri.[1]
After completing his studies he became a professor in Freiburg University and
later became the rector of the university. During this time he was also
involved in the National Socialist German
Workers’ Party (NSDAP) and later broke away from it.[2]
He died in the year 1976, May 26th. He spent his last days in his
own home town.[3]
Till the end of his life he was preoccupied with the work of finding out the
meaning of being.[4]
He is called as the most original thinker in the field of contemporary German
philosophy.[5]
1.2 Structure
of the Paper
In
this paper I have presented the summary of the life of Martin Heidegger in the
first chapter. In the second chapter I have explained the concept of
understanding in detail. In this chapter I have presented how Dasein understands through the
interpretive projection and arrives at the meaning of its own self and the
other entities in the world. In the third chapter I have presented the summary
of the thought of Heidegger on understanding and have concluded the paper with a
little remark about Heidegger and his thoughts.
CHAPTER 2
UNDERSTANDING
2.1 The Meaning of the Word Understanding
The concept of understanding that Heidegger
proposes is very rich and complex in its nature. Heidegger is of
the opinion that the world revealed by our emotional phenomena is different
form what we learn from theoretical knowing.[6] He
rejects the absolute theoretical knowledge of the world where the notion of
truth is correspondence.[7]
The German expression for the word understanding is sich auf etwasverstehenwhich means knowing how to. He uses the word
understanding (verstehen) not in the
way that usually people used but in the sense of knowing how to. He says that
knowing how to is ontologically different form the theoretical knowing. It is
different because in this understanding the Dasein
knows itself as well as the world. This knowing itself and the world is prior
to theoretical knowing.[8]
The word understanding ordinarily means a mental act. But Heidegger refers to
understanding as an existential concept. It refers to a feature of human beings
which we always have but not necessarily actualized always.[9] To
know or to understand is an important ontological feature of Dasein.[10]
He presents understanding as another factor in the disclosedness of Dasein.[11]
2.2
Understanding as Dasein’s
Potentiality-for-being
In his bookBeingand Time, Heideggerwrites: “Understanding is the existential Being of Dasein’sown potentiality-for-being; and it is so in such a way that this being discloses in itself what its being is capable of.” He explains that understanding always pertains to the whole basic state of being-in-the-world.[12]Dasein, through understanding as disclosure realizes that the world discloses itself and it also comes to the awareness that it is a being with possibilities. Through this understanding Dasein is capable of making itself an issue to itself.He further says that Dasein has the potentiality-for-being and understanding is the being of such potentiality-for-being.He makes the point very clear that understanding is part of Dasein’s ability-to-be.[13] In understanding Dasein is freed from its possibility in turn every entity in the world is also freed in its possibility and they are disclosed in their being for Dasein.[14]For Heidegger understanding is the basic form of knowing, though which we receive knowledge.[15]He also says that understanding is a possibility that always lies ahead.[16]
2.3 Projection
In the process of explaining the
concept of understanding Heidegger introduces the term projection. Through this
projection the world with all its entities is disclosed to Dasein.[17]He
further says that projection is the existential structure of understanding
which is very basic for the process of understanding.[18]This
projection lights up the world and leads to the understanding of the world and
its entities.[19]The
term projection ordinarily means throwing something off or throwing something away.
Heidegger uses this term in the meaning of designing or sketching some project
which is to be carried through and through. He further says that the character
of understanding as projection is constitutive of being-in-the-world with
regard to the disclosure of its existentially constitutive state-of-Being. Dasein through its being-in-the-world
projects itself.[20]Dasein through projection projects
itself as well as its possibilities to the world.[21]In
this process of projection Dasein
discovers the entities in their serviceability and usability.[22]
Here Heidegger says that every projection is form one particular sight of the Dasein and he calls this particular
sight through which the projection takes place as horizon.[23]
2.4 Interpretation
Interpretation is part of the whole
web of Heidegger’s analysis of Dasein’sBeing-in-the-world. As I have
already explained the human Dasein, in its efforts to understand the
world, projects its possibilities. Through thisbeing-towards-possibilitiesDasein understands its potentiality-for-Being.
After having said this he introduces the term interpretation. This
interpretation is not something different it is part of understanding.[24]
The German word for interpretation is auslegung
through this word Heidegger means the laying out of the possibilities brought
in the sight by Dasein’s projection.[25]
This interpretation is a constitutive element of understanding. Heidegger makes
a point very clear that throughout the process of understanding we interpret.[26]
He further goes on to say that interpretation is working out of the
possibilities projected in understanding.[27]
Interpretation makes the implicit connection of the involvement of the entities
explicit to Dasein.[28]
With regard to interpretation and understanding Heidegger speaks of two types
of structures, they are; as-structure and fore-structure.[29]
2.4.1 As-Structure
Heidegger is of the opinion that in
the process of understanding through projection, Dasein arrives at meaning through as-structure and fore
structure.He explains that as-structure refers to Dasein’sinterpretation
of entities in the world in relation to their purpose or utility. Dasein is
aware of the fact that entities lie in the world. In the process of
understanding the ready-to-hand comes explicitly into the sight which
understands. Dasein’sas-structure appropriates their service, purpose,
and use in relation to the realization of possibilities. [30]
In simple words we can say that the object that is in investigation is placed
in a particular sight, this is what Heidegger calls as the as-structure of the
process of understanding.[31]
Through this Dasein understands
the entities in the world as ready-to-hand. In the explicit
understanding,Dasein realizes
that what is understood has a structure which makes that particular thing as
that thing.[32] In
simple words, a thing reveals itself as something and we human beings see it
and understand it as it revels itself as something.
2.4.2Fore-Structure
Heidegger says that when a
particular thing is interpreted as something it is founded on three things;
fore-having, fore-sight, and fore-conception. This he calls as fore-structure.[33]The
German word for fore-having, fore-sight, and fore-conception arevorhabe,
vorsicht and vorgriff.[34]
2.4.2.1 Fore-Having
In the interpretation of the world, Dasein
has a prior awareness in relation to the function and purpose of the
entities in the world. Through this the as-structure becomes clear and
explicit. The ready-to-hand is always understood in terms of a totality of
involvement. In every understanding, the interpretation is grounded in
something that we already have in advance; Heidegger calls this prior awareness
as fore-having.[35]Therefore
in every interpretive understanding there is some awareness of what is being
understood or interpreted.
2.4.2.2 Fore-Sight
As Heidegger explains the
fore-having he also says that in every case, interpretation is grounded in something
we see in advance, this particular sight that we already have of the entity he
calls as fore-sight. Here he says that the word sight should not be
misunderstood.[36]He
says that here the word seeing or sight does not mean the mere perceiving with
the bodily eyes, but means pure awareness of something present-at-hand. [37]
This fore-sight is an inseparable half of fore-having, they are interlinked. This
fore-sight and fore-having help Dasien
to interpret in relation to the as-structure of a particular entity.[38]
2.4.2.3 Fore-Conception
The third foundation of
fore-structure is fore-conception. This fore-conception is nothing but what we
grasp in advance.[39]
Like fore-having and fore-sight, fore-conception is a priori in the
structure of the existential analytic of Dasein. Through this
fore-conception the as-structure is made explicit to Dasein.[40]
2.5 Meaning
Heidegger is of the opinion that the
entities in the world have meaning only when Dasein is aware of those entities. If Dasein is not aware of a particular entity then it has no meaning
at all. A particular entity gets its meaning through its possibility for being
understood by Dasein.[41]
He is very clear in his expression that an entity has meaning only when Dasein is aware of that particular
entity. Dasein understands the
meaning of the entity which it is aware of through the unity of fore-structure
and fore-having..[42]Through
this interpretive understanding Dasein
arrives at meaning and then having arrived at meaning Dasein makes assertions about the entity which Dasein has understood.[43]
Heidegger says that only Dasein can
be meaningful or meaningless for meaning is an existential of Dasein and not property of any entity.[44]
CHAPTER 3
CONCLUSION
3.1 Summary
Dasein by
its very mode of disclosure is primarily being-possible and understanding is
the mode of existence of Dasein. When
Dasein understands itself it is freed
of its possibility of being understood, on the other hand the entity which is
understood by Dasein is also
freed. The first step for understanding
is projection. Through this projection entities are disclosed in relation to
their involvement and utility. Through this projection of possibilities Dasein interprets itself, the Codaseinsand the other entities in the
world. Every projection has got a fore-structure in it. This fore-structure is
nothing but the combination of fore-having, fore-sight and fore-conception.
Though through projection Dasein views the entities it does not
understand them fully. Each entity has got an as-structure. The entity is
understood fully only through the interpretation of fore-structure and
as-structure. Combining both the fore-structure and the as-structure Dasein arrives at the meaning of a
particular entity. This meaning which is derived through this process is not an
ultimate meaning, it will always change. After having arrived at meaning Dasein makes an assertion only after
this the process of understanding completes.
3.2 Concluding Remarks
Martin Heidegger is considered as one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century. His thinking has contributed to diverse fields like, phenomenology, existentialism, hermeneutics, political theory, psychology and theology. His critique of traditional metaphysics and his opposition to positivism and technological world domination have been embraced by leading theorists of postmodernity namely; Derrida, Foucault, and Lyotard. On the other hand, his involvement in the Nazi movement has been a major debate until now. He spent his entire life trying to know the meaning of being. He turned to the exegesis of historical texts, especially of the Pre-Socratic also of Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche and Hölderlin. In his thought he addressed various subjects, such as poetry, architecture and technology. Instead of looking for a full clarification of the meaning of being, he tried to pursue a kind of thinking which was no longer metaphysical.[45]
Heidegger is not
like other philosophers, his contribution to the field of philosophy is
something unique and worthy of our praise.
But while reading or studying his thought we must keep in mind that he
never wanted to give answers but wanted to provoke questions through his
writings, so it will be wrong to present his thought as a set of clearly
understandable results or even consider his thought as such.[46]
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
PRIMARY SOURCE
Heidegger,
Maritin.Being and Time.Translated by John Macquarie &
E. Robinson. New York: Hamper and Row, 1962.
SECONDARY SOURCES
A. BOOKS
Eugene
Francis Kaelin, Heidegger’s Being and
Time: A Reading for Readers (Tallahassee: The Florida State University Press,
1988) 105.
Gelven, Michael. A
Commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Time. New York: Harper Torch
books, 1970.
Macquarrie,John.Heidegger and Christianity.London: SCM
Press Ltd, 1994.
Schmitt,
Richard.Martin Heidegger on Being: An
Introduction to Sain Und Zeit. New York: Random House Inc, 1978.
Kisiel,Theodore.Heidegger’s
Way of Thought: Critical and Interpretative Signposts. Edited by Alfred
Denker and Marion Heinz. New York: Continuum, 2002.
B. ARTICLES
Scott,Charles E.
“Martin Heidegger.” Encyclopedia
of Philosophy.Ed. Donald M. Borchert.2ndedn. New York: Gale
Cengage Learning, 2006.4: 288-296.
Naess,Arne D. “Martin Heidegger.” Encyclopedia Britannica.15thedn. Chicago: Encyclopedia
Britannica, Inc., 1979.8: 738-741.
C. UNPUBLUSHED MATERIAL
Sequeira,John F. Martin Heidegger (class notes) Nashik:
Divyadaan, A Salesian Institute of Philosophy, 2013.
[1]Charles
E. Scott, “Martin Heidegger,” Encyclopedia
of Philosophy, gen ed. Donald M. Borchert, 2ndedn. (New York:
Gale Cengage Learning, 2006) 4: 288-289.
[2]W. J.
Korab-Karpowicz, “Martin Heidegger,” http://www.iep.utm.edu/heidegge/, accessed
on 20/02/2013.
[3]Arne D.
Naess, “Martin Heidegger,” Encyclopedia
Britannica, 15thedn, (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.,
1979) 8: 740.
[5]Naess, Encyclopedia Britannica, 738.
[6] Richard Schmitt, Martin Heidegger on Being: An Introduction
to Sain Und Zeit (New York: Random House Inc, 1978) 153.
[11]John
Macquarrie, Heidegger and Christianity
(London: SCM Press Ltd, 1994) 24.
[12]Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, trans. John Macquarie & E. Robinson (New York:
Hamper and Row, 1962) 184.
[13] Heidegger, Being
and Time, 183-184.
[14] John F. Sequeira, Martin Heidegger (Class Notes,Divyadaan:
A Salesian Institute of Philosophy,Nashik, 2013) 16.
[15]Theodore
Kisiel, Heidegger’s Way of Thought: Critical
and Interpretative Signposts, eds. Alfred Denker and Marion Heinz (New
York: Continuum, 2002) 51.
[16]Macquarrie,
Heidegger and Christianity, 24.
[17]Sequeira, Martin Heidegger, 17.
[18] Heidegger, Being
and Time, 184-185.
[19]Eugene
Francis Kaelin, Heidegger’s Being and
Time: A Reading for Readers (Tallahassee: The Florida State University
Press, 1988) 105.
[20]Heidegger, Being
and Time, 185.
[21]Heidegger, Being
and Time, 183.
[22]Heidegger, Being
and Time, 185.
[23]Sequeira, Martin Heidegger, 17.
[24]Heidegger, Being
and Time, 188.
[25]Kaelin, Heidegger’s Being and Time, 105.
[26]Sequeira, Martin Heidegger, 17.
[27]Heidegger, Being
and Time, 189.
[28]Kaelin, Heidegger’s Being and Time, 106.
[30] Heidegger, Being
and Time, 189-190.
[31]Sequeira, Martin Heidegger, 17.
[32]Heidegger, Being
and Time, 189.
[34]Kaelin, Heidegger’s Being and Time, 106.
[40] Michael Gelven, A Commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Time
(New York: Harper Torch Books, 1970) 97.
[45]W. J.
Korab-Karpowicz, “Martin Heidegger,” http://www.iep.utm.edu/heidegge/, accessed
on 20/02/2013.
[46]Naess, Encyclopedia Britannica, 740.
