TOPIC: HEIDEGGER’S BEING AND TIME

Heidegger emphasizes that “our initial contact with objects is in terms of their use and
availability to us for certain assigned tasks, tasks generated by our interests. We tamper
with and manipulate things as determined by our interests and our goals.” He calls this
as the ready-to-hand character of objects. How is this understanding a critique of
Husserl’s intentionality?

Introspecting Heidegger’s statement on the character of objects, this takes note of the
processes that are being utilized by beings when it comes to knowing other things. For
things to direct themselves to consciousness, it is important to take note of the
availability of objects, and its relationship to the ones in contact with it. This statement
becomes a critique towards Husserl’s concept of intentionality as his ideas were not
extending towards the beings themselves. Husserl primarily conceptualizes
intentionality as a structure of consciousness that comes into mind when in contact with
a certain object. It becomes an act of knowing where something that is intentional, such
as another being, is directed to the entity perceiving it. This concept focuses on
theoretical understanding of how objects are presented to our consciousness, through
the embodied nature of experiences.

Heidegger points out how this perspective of intentionality becomes problematic as it

does not account for the mode of being present in intentional objects. It contains an
insufficient account for consciousness, and misses out the structural totality of
intentionality that should focus on how the being is intended to the other being. This is
what he adds as the ‘ready-to-hand’ character of objects, to which emphasizes how a
being is directed in our comportment towards the object at present. The initial contact
with objects would always include their availability, determinable by their uses, that
would later be interpreted by the ones perceiving it. Heidegger points out how our initial
understanding of things should not be theoretical (as Husserl suggests), but rather,
interpretative towards our ‘practical dealings’ or our goals and interest. This emphasizes
how objects present themselves to the world as we grasp their mode of beings through
their available character. The thing that we come to know is already present in the
world, and not through a transcendental ego. Heidegger critique Husserl’s accounts,
and revise the concept of intentionality through an ‘essential disclosure of things’ that
should take place through the relations of objects with our own interpretations.
Make a digest on the hermeneutic character of intentionality.

Facts:

Heidegger criticizes Husserl’s account of intentionality as they contain insufficient

understanding of how objects are directed towards the consciousness of beings. Rather
than the theoretical consciousness suggested, the understanding of the world is more
based on the interpretative involvement that they have on objects. The ‘ready-at-hand’
character of objects is already present in this world, and as beings-of-the-world, humans
can interpret them in accordance with their own individuality and context. Experiences
are presented to humans, as they try to be presented to the world. Heidegger asserts
how this disclosure of things takes place in Dasein’s presence in the environment,
which relates beings altogether. While disclosing these objects, the relationship
between entities becomes ‘primarily interpretative’, whereas intentionality becoming
hermeneutical in approach.

Issues:

The concept of intentionality is not presented as a theoretical approach to our

consciousness, but rather an interpretative component that relates beings with the
world. Husserl did not elaborate on the manner of how things are intended to the ones
perceiving it, and only states how things are presented without any procedures or
interpretations. He sees intentionality as a structure of consciousness, that constitutes
itself in theory without any specified manner.

Ruling:

Through the fundamental structure of Dasein, Heidegger elaborates on the expressive

manner of how beings are intended towards the world. Expression and language are
factors that affect this presentation, thus he connects them on hermeneutics, the study
of interpretation. The fusion of phenomenology and hermeneutics becomes the manner
in which ‘human existence’ becomes interpretative with their intentionality. Since
experiences have always been interpreted primarily, it becomes an action that views the
encounters in relation to the being. This interpretative approach towards intentionality
gives shape to the practical concept that Husserl has primarily constituted.

Explain the structure of the Dasein in terms of:

Dasein, or “Being-There”, is a fundamental concept that takes note of the existence of

beings situated in the world. It is the realization of human existence as
Being-in-the-world, that would always be present in our context and environment.
Heidegger elaborates how this “fundamental nature of Dasein is always to be in a
world.” This structure of Dasein places a strong emphasis on its relationship with the
world, as it is where beings would be in contact with each other through the care that
objects would input, being ready-at-hand. The structure of Dasein allows one to be
aware of each other’s existence, and further understands the context of ‘being’ through
the relationship with the world.

The structure of Dasein would also elaborate on the differences between other entities
present in the world. This is shown when a human being would question their
relationships with other entities, through a certain analysis of what their existence is.
Dasein would emphasize the individuality of a Being, and allows humans, the ones
perceiving it, to question its nature. This individuality expressed through Dasein,
portrays the difference that human beings have with other entities. They question their
own human existence, and also the existence of other entities. This relationship allows
one to care for each other despite differences that is brought by the individuality that
they present. Dasein allows different possibilities to happen as human beings are
individualised through their own existence.

Through the concept of Dasein, Heidegger discusses the ways of being, which are
‘authenticity’ and ‘inauthenticity’. Being authentic is to put one’s existence to themselves
and collect them into wholeness. On the other hand, being inauthentic is the vague
understanding of what is happening arounds us, not completely absorbing the context
presented to us. This comparison portrays the structure of Dasein as relating the being
to the world, which reveals the capability of living with these modes of being. They are a
priori features that allows the relation between ‘I’ and ‘They’. Beings would examine
one’s existence in either an authentic or inauthentic manner, and this is because of how
Dasein is present and individualised into the lives of each being.