Being-in-the-World A Commentary on Heidegger's Being and Time, Division 1 Hubert L. Dreyfus ‘The MIT Press ‘Cambridge, Massachusetts London, EnglandFor uphon and Gabriele {©1991 Maaco enol Prface wi eerie, Nope ion esta am eat ‘mation storage and retrieval without permison in wring from the pusher Introduction: Why Study Being and Time? — 1 union gent Tine Mantegna Macquave ‘Se Baard Robinson, 01962 SEM Pret eared bere y perma of 1 [cA Press tan Hope Row Pubs ne Heldgge\ Seetontoe rotucion 10 "ak a tin Bae The ME remand pind wd . Heidegger's Methodological traduction 30 Libary Congr Calon Puan Data Drei Hubert 3 ‘Seigindhecl a commen on Heldeggersbeing and ie, ‘A Preliminary Sketch of Beinginthe World 40 eda ina ferences ’ ISBNoSe20t1065.— ISBN O38 nee hk) aaa are oes, Ot T Heeger Mar, 188-1078 Sch und ek. 2 Ontology S.Space and me Tie 5 Iaboaassue 600 miedo snsenz enone 28 cr 6 rider Crit Rt Versions f Cartan 108 7 Spotcy and Space 128 LQ 20) 19 lew v8 DaeThe “Who” of Everyday Dasein 141 ‘The Theol Srctre of Beingn 163 10 Afictednens 168 u Understanding 194 12 Teling and Sere 215, 23 Faling 225 4 The CareSructre 238 15 Philosophical Implications of « Hermeneutic of Everyamess 246 Appendic: Kerhguard, Divison I, and Later Heidegger Huber L. Dre and Jane Rabin 289 Nes 340 Inder 363, “This commentary hasbeen circulating i gradually changing ver sons for over twenty years. I started in 1068 asa set of “Fybate Lecture Notes" ranscribed from my course on Beingand Timea the University of California, Berkeley. n 1975 sated circulating my updated lecture notes to students and anyone else who was inter ‘ested. For a decade thereafter I revised the notes each year incorporating and responding to what I lexned from my students dnd teaching asistants By 1985 there were so many requests for “The Heidegger Transcripts that Iwas encouraged to transform them intoa book. The fiestdratof dhe book wasfinishedin ime for 81988 NEH Summer Insitute held atthe University of California, Santa Cruz, On the basis of what I learned from colleagues and pantcipantthereand luring the following summer hen course on Beng end Timeat the University of Franklur,14id one final revision for this MIT Pres edition Aboutall that has stayed constant over wentyyearsof revising has been my decision tolimitthe notes to Division lof Part One of Being ‘and Time, sill consider this the mort original and important Section ofthe work, fort iin Division that Heidegger works out hissccountofbeingintheword and wesitto ground profound critique of traditional ontology and epistemology. Division Tl of Part One, which makes up the rest of what we have of Heidegger's proposed two-part book (Division II of Part One and all of Part ‘Twowerenever published), dividesintotwosomenhatindependent enterprises Fis, chee isthe “existentialist side of Heidegger's thought, which focuses on anxiety death, guilt, and resoluteness and which, although highly influential on sown andin ta Sartian terion in Being and Nthingnes, wa, for good reasons later aba Adoned by Heidegger himself Andsecond there the laying oto the temporality of human being and ofthe world, and the roving:tt Po ing of both of these in more orginary temporality whose past, present and futredimensionrare not toe thoughtofarsuccesive ‘Although the chapters on orginary temporality are an essential part of Heidegger’ project, his account leads him 0 far fom the phenomenon of everydaytemporalitythat Ididnotfeel could give 2 satshaetory interpretation of the material Moreover the whole of Division Il seemed to me much let carefully worked out than Division and, indeed, have some erorssosertourastoblockany consistent reading (I subsequent learned dhat when Heidegger ‘wasupfor theequivalentoftenure, hesubmitiedonlyDivision for Publication, but dhe Ministry of Education considered i “insu Sent” He agreed, in exchange for tenure, o publish = hasty Finished version of Dison IL) In the end, thanks to two of my former students, the book has tured out somevatdiferenty than T had originally planned, Jane Rabin, who was then teaching the Kierkegaard couse at Berkeley, agreed to collaborate with me on an article on Klerkegaard’s influence on early Heidegger, At roughly the same time, Berkeley went on thesemester stem, atwhich ime decided to add Division Il to my Bang and Time course. Under these com didone I became more and more involved in sorting out the cxistentilint side of Heidegger, and our article grew into the pendix ofthis book. ‘With eard to the very dificult chapters on time, Iwas saved by William Blatner, who, after working on Heidegger as an under graduate at Berkeley, wrote his doctoral disertation with John Haugeland at Pitsburgh on temporality n Kant and Heidegae. iraccountof emporabityin Beng and Tomepinpointsand corrects Heidegger's confusions and makes sense of even the most dificult passages. When Blatner publishes his work, itwillbe an important ‘ontrbution toan understanding of Heidegger on ime andean be ‘ought of as completing thi commentary. Another event tht required radially revising the wanseripis was the posthumous publication of Heidegger's leture courses, in ‘ding thove from the years immediately preceding ad following {he publication of Bring and Time in 1927. istry ofthe Conc of Tie (1925), The Bese Prablens of Phenomenology (1937), and The Metaphysical Foundations o Logi (1938) cast hoods of new light on Heidegger's magoum opts, Many passages that are aninteligible Being and Thr are spelled out is clea and simple terms in the lectures These new pblicaionsalso confirmed a hypothesis Job Pau Haugeland and {had made in 1978 that Bring and Timecould be tunderstood asa stematic critique of Huser's phenomenology, tren though Hues! and his basic concept, intentionality, are hardly mentioned inthe book. The appearance of Basic Prolos, whic explicitly undertakes “the erk of interpreting more ‘adlially the phenomena of intentionality and transcendence” scemed.aconifrmation ofour approach Ialsojustfied myemphasis ‘om the nonmenialtie approach to intentionality in Being and Time, ‘which, thanks othe constant friendly opposition of John Searle, ready Sgured prominently in my commentary. When Being and Time was published in 1927, i was immediately recognized asa classic, Pethaps for this reason Heidegger never ‘made any substantive changes to the txt, although he did make smal sisi changes inthe fourteen subsequent reprintings. He also Kept several copies of the book in which he’ made notes ‘correcting passages that had been or ould be misunderstood and ‘rising the book’ssubstantive claims from the perspective ofhis later thought. (Heidegger's writings are divided by him into two periods: those dating roughly from before 1980, and those writen {rom 1980 on.) ‘Quotations from Being and Timein this book ae followed by two sets of page numbers; he fist (in parentheses) refersto a page of the standard English eansltion, the second (inbrackets)toapage ‘ofthe tandard German, When [quote from Heidegger'smarginal notes, cite the page number from Sen & Zatin the Gesentansgabe {Collected works edition in braces. Chaptersin Bengand Timeare Cited with roman numerals, chapters in this book with arabic ‘numerals (and lowercase for cart) “Bang and Time is notoriously hard to translate. Heidegger was determined to avoid the mistaken ontology built into traditional Philosophical terms, ut he was aso convinced that ordinary language was inevitably misleading and had contributed to and ‘ecprocally ben coorupted by philosophy. He therefore made up ‘many of his own technical terms, Heidegger's translators have ‘rgd with this problem with varying degrees of succes. Inthe “Macquarie Robinson translation of Bring and Tine, which i the ‘onlyone in English, Heidegger's proses generaly well rendered, ‘but many of the technical terms have been translated nto English terms that ether lack the connotations Heidegger relying on © [pln acrostor, worse, have just the connotations Heidegger= Peta Istryng toavoid. In some casesthe translators ofthe three volumes ‘of lectures from the period of Bring ond Time have come wp with better terms, but thelr diverse ideas only further complicate mat ter when one needs to asemble quotations fr all four texts In the face of these problems, and in the hope of ultimately decreasing rather than augmenting the numberof English varie ‘ions in print foreach German term, John Haugeland, William Blatner,and have madean attempt siandardie our terminology have ied to Keep to this agreement, though in some contexts have felt forced to tikeouton my own, Thus the occasional we of the following list of modifiations ofthe standard Augentick means terally “the glance of an eye." It is Luther's translation ofthe biblical "winking ofan ese” in which “we shall De changed." Kierkegaard uses Oita a technical term that is translated as “the moment’; since Heidegger derives his usage from Kierkegaard, [shall transate Augendick not asthe moment of vision” but simply asthe mament, Ausictung can mean “diectonaliy.” but in context onntation seems mote appropriate Bafndlihhetisnotan ordinary German word butis constructed out ofan idiom. In chapter 10Texplain why the standard wanaton, “ate of mind, "is misleading and why, after much discussion and without great enthusiasm, we have chosen afjeodne Begegnen means to encounter." AsHeidegger wes the term, things encounter us, butinthestandard translation, we encounter things. In most cases, “things shew wp for us" captures Heidegger's smesing Durcsihig if twansated as “rangparent,”"could be taken to mean Invisible: for Heidegger, talways means cearorpyprwnusandthat Shove I shall translate i Entferusg is another term that Heidegger as constructed, this ime by taking apart the ordinary wordfor distance." The tandard tanslation, "deseverence” is unnecesarily strange. Heidegger's ‘wordplay can be captured exactly by taking the normal translation Pfu for Enyfomung, “distance” and writing it dsstance Foran expla ration see chapter 7 CGanshat can be rendered “tually,” but Heidegger's holism i Detter capeured by translating it as whale see chapter 4). Ixnerueich Intraorlly soften simpler than the standard with Inaheworld." Ihave used each term where it fits best as Man. lis misleading to translate this erm asthe The," since thie suggests that we are not par of Das Man. For reasons given in ‘deal at the beginning of chapter 8, we have chosen the ne Fide literally means talk, but “discourse” is too formal and too [nguistietor what Heideggerincladesuander thisterm Forressons siven in chapter 12, we use ting Seine translatedas bing (with alower-ase 2. Beingis“that on the basis of which beings are already understood.” Being isnot & substance, a proces, an event, oF anything that we normallycome across rather, its a fundamental aspect of entities, viz their intelligibility (see chapter 1). There are two basi ways of being, Beinghuman, which Heidegger calls sein, and nontiuman be ing. The latter divides into two categoriex. Zuhandenhat and Vorhandenhet These termsare tandardly translated a5 “readines- torhand” and “presenceathand.” To consey a sense of the #0 modes of intelligibility that Heidegger is singling ost, we have hhosen euilablenas ani oecureniness The entities that have these sways of being are called awilaleand occurrent. Sein bei, as Heidegger uses the term, does not mean “being: alongpide” but baingemist Bin Scinendesistandardlyranslatedas“an entiy.” When Heidegger isdeserbing everday contexts however, itispreferabletouse adeng Inabsuact philosophical contexts, and where "a beings ikely be confused with "being." Thave retained en enti. Seinkinnen. The standard translation, “potentisiy-forbei both awkward and misleading, since Kinnen signifies 2 know hom, ot usta potently. We use abisoserue Sinnis usually translated as “meaning,” but that makes phrases like “the meaning of being” sound too definitional. We use sense Unheimlich, usally ranslated ax “uncanny, is meant to call atten- Hom othe sense human beings have of not being at home inthe ‘world, Fr this reason we propose wnsdlnd, Usprungich is always translated “primordial” in the standard \wanslaion. This is appropriate when Heidegger isspeaking ofthe “more primordial, meaning clower to the sure. When, however, ‘wsprnglichisused to mean bingthesource,Itraslateitssoriginary Vefassung in Seinsofasung and Grandverassung i usually rane: latedas"consittion “butthisisaHusseriantermandistheretore misleading in this context, We prefer maha. Veraufon. The sandard translation, “anticipating.” sounds too intentionalisic. Moreover, thas connotations of loking forward to something. Asin the case of other nonintentionaitie notions ‘sichas the towardishich, we needa technical term ad wil simply tse the tera trandation foram Wilcke The German iterally meansworldlines not world hod Worldlines, understood asthe Way of being ofthe world, sn no vray connected with the ordinary Sense of wordlinessasaway of ie ‘oppored tothe spiritual Worauphin isan important and difcul technical term, translated asthe uponwhieh” and alo in many other ways in the andard ‘wansltion.Iteferstothe background on he basso which orto the siructueof the background in rms of which dings are intelligible eranslate it that in tems of which oF that on the basis of which depending on the context Zandt und smear a. common park “by and lange." Move ‘xt they mean rman and way Zasammenhang could be translated “context” but ness less am ‘bignous have tried to se the above terms consistently in ting aig and ‘Tine and the lectures. [have als fel ree to revise the sandard st Pau translations when Isa way t sharpen the point Heidegger was tying to make. In addiion to adding alice to stresthe relation of aterm or phrase to my argument, Thave in mos cases deleted all ‘or part of Heidegger's own italics, Kalicsin general are used more freely in German than in English; moreover, Heidegger tales ‘often make sense onl in the context ofthe surrounding pages. Mort of those who read Heidegger in German or English are at fist put of by hsstrange new language, but after passing through stage of uying to put what he sys into more familiar terms, hey come to feel that Heidegger svoeabulary is rigorous, and even indispensable for talking about the phenomenon he ‘wants to reveal If thanks to Heidegger's language, te reader ‘omesto see the phenomenon of wold, which iso obvious thatit thas been passed oser for 2,500 yeas, and learns to think and talk bout beingin it, Being and Tine and this commentary wll have ‘done theirjob, Actnsledgments ‘Over the past wo decades Ihave incurred an enormous debt to successive generations of tudenteand teaching asetantewho have Dasein mustbe understood tobe more basic than mentalstatesand theirintentionaley In footnote toward the end of Bang and Time Heidegger sys, The intentionality of'consciousnest iagrounded {nde eestacal temporality of Datein” (498) (368)