Heideggers being and time.
Being and time in heideggers oeuvre and in the history of philosophy
Being and time is often treated as if it is the equivalent of the critique of pure reason for
Kant, bt is not the main work of heidegger. Publication of bt was made in Hs stardom.
He had not published a major work till then. Hursel mentored heidegger's being and
time. Heidegger has to publish this because of professional constraints. Would he
publish the work if he hadn't had such pressures? It is published in the context of the
resurgence of neo kantism. Would've been possible if he wanted to work on the works of
Aristotle. This is just a reinterpretation of aristotles work. H is relatively young when it
was published but the second part was not finished. Destruction, or deconstruction, the
second part was never finished. At one point he concluded that the whole work had to
be redone. Where does the work fit into h's corpus overall? H is still asking the same
question, the question of being. Heidegger will come at it in a number of angles. Theres
a question whether all the approached can be systematized. Does it? H is not
committed to not one specific system. Ways not works. Every question into being is a
way into the question and not a final result. Being and time in the history of philosophy.
Despite what is there in the being in the being and time, don't take H's claim that the
question of being has been forgotten. Almost every philosopher has dealt with the topic
of being, but the forgetfulness of being is specific. What is a being qua being? What is a
being in so far much as it is a being? What is a being qua physical thing? What h is
saying is that the question of being, should be distinguished from the question of being-
ness. The first point is that whatever Heidegger is saying, that the Being of entities is
itself not an entity. Beingness is a higher order entity, entity is thing. Being is not an
entity, and Being is not a super order entity. B is capitalized to denote this difference.
Being and time contributes to the larger conception of truth in two ways. Inauthenticity
and authenticity, for virtues of truthfulness. Uncoverdness, and disclosure.
The necessity of the question of being versus the necessity of restating this question.
Two distinct questions here thst are conflated. It's the two, necessity of the question of
being, and the necessity of restating the question. If you carry your inquiry further, you