Being and Time in Heidegger’s Oeuvre and in the History of Philosophy
• Important considerations: often treated as Heidegger’s major work (like critique of pure
reason), but this is not the case; a response to Husserl; he was under pressure to publish at
the time; published in the context of neo-Kantian concerns; this work is never finished.
• The portion of the work that wasn’t completed: Thedestructuring of the history of
• Instead of this work, we could have had a major re-interpretation of Aristotle’s
• Heidegger’s turn: there’s a difference between a tu rn in H’s mind, and a turn in PHL; H
keeps asking the same question despite talk of “turns”—the question of being.
• H relates being to other PHL activities and thinkers.
• On the one hand, addressing one question from different angles; and questioning whether
all these angles can be systematized (H doesn’t seem to be concerned that it all fit
• “Ways not works”—H: all H’s texts are ways into thequestion of being, but none are a
• The Question of Being In The History of PHL
• Don’t take too seriously, the claim that the question of being has been forgotten.
• What he really means is: ....we’ll come back to that later.
• H’s question is opposed to the classic question: What is a being in so far as it is a being?
—Aristotle; beings as beings, not one or another aspect; classic view, being is just a
higher order being.
• H: Being cannot be thought of as a higher order of being.
• H: Being should be distinguished from beingness...
• beingness: the act of being; .
• Being (with capital): Being is not itself an entity (H’s special version of being, whereas
the small b being is the classic view).
• Being in Time’s 2 big contributions to our liet motif
• inauthenticity vs. authenticity
• uncoverdness vs. disclosure (section 7)
The “necessity” of the question of Being vs. the “necessity” of restating this question
• 2 distinct questions: the necessity of the question of being; the restating of the question of
being (are we restating being or beingness)
• Priority here: basically means the same as necessity.
• It is the question you cannot avoid in your existence—the question of being has priority
to all others, hence, necessity. The is different that reforming the question itself
• Section 1—attacks dogma that sanctions the neglect of this question.
• H: PHL may not appeal to obviousness.
• The three prejuduces
• 1) being is universal
• 2) indefinable
• 3) self-evident • Does he take these to be fundamentally wrong? No. What’s wrong is that they are taken
as grounds for no longer being concerned with the question of Being.
• Instead of producing dogmas, these prejudices shoul