Heidegger’s Notion of Authenticity Martin Heidegger is one of the most influential and highly regarded existential philosophers of the 20th century. Born in Meβkirch, Germany on September 26th 1889, Heidegger began his plight with life and theories of existentialism. Early in his life, Heidegger was influenced by Kierkegaard, and Edmund Husserl, which taught him the ideas of hermeneutics and phenomenology. Together, their ideas helped create one of Heidegger’s main ideas, his emphasis on being an authentic human being or “Dasein,” which translates “there Being.” The authenticity or Eigentlichkeit (own-ness) Heidegger preached was that a human being should strive to be an individual, to bring meaning to our lives. And if one does not seek to be an individual, Heidegger warns that they are doomed to dissolve into society and have no real life, a life controlled not by the ideas of the being, but of the society they belong to. Ultimately resulting in a life wasted because the being never formulated their own meaning to life. Heidegger’s notion of authenticity can be found in other philosopher’s ideals like Fredrick …show more content…
But adversely, Nietzsche explains that this is not the case in life, not all societal conventions like morals and virtues fit all people, and that one should not just accept them as truths, this is expressed with Nietzsche’s quote “Your virtue is health for your soul.” To truly be authentic, one should choose what works best for themselves, not what works for other people, this coincides with Heidegger’s fear of “dissolving” into society. That if one is to just accept the ideas provided to them immediately, they lose all sense of individualism and authenticity and are lost to the
We have grown weary of man. Nietzsche wants something better, to believe in human ability once again. Nietzsche’s weariness is based almost entirely in the culmination of ressentiment, the dissolution of Nietzsche’s concept of morality and the prevailing priestly morality. Nietzsche wants to move beyond simple concepts of good and evil, abandon the assessment of individuals through ressentiment, and restore men to their former wonderful ability.
Heidegger tries to find a way to help man to transcend this homelessness, which he considers to be dangerous for the present and the future of the human being. This is the reason why Heidegger, already in 1929, asks the question of "what is metaphysics?". He thinks that this question itself can open the way he is looking for, because it plays a very important role in putting the question of Being correctly and in settling the problem of homelessness of the human being.
In his essay “Existentialism”, Jean Paul Sartre discusses the main beliefs of existentialism. Perhaps the most important belief of existentialism is that there is no human nature, and there is no God. This means that each individual man has control of his own destiny. The definition of each individual man is the sum of his life and all he has accomplished in his life. He is also responsible for all the choices and actions he makes in his life. These types of choices and actions can be seen in the book “Night” by Elie Wiesel. This book is a story about a boy, Wiesel, who is taken to a concentration camp with his family. It follows him and his father through their trials and movement from Auschwitz to Burkenau, and to Buna and how they continue to narrowly escape death. By the end of the story, readers see how Wiesel has become indifferent to the horrors of the camps. From the beginning to this point in the book, Wiesel and other characters make decisions that Sartre would call existentialist.
Heideggers Conceptual Essences: Being and the Nothing, Humanism, and Technology Being and the Nothing are the same. The ancient philosopher Lao-tzu believed that the world entertains no separations and that opposites do not actually exist. His grounding for this seemingly preposterous proposition lies in the fact that because alleged opposites depend on one another and their definitions rely on their differences, they cannot possibly exist without each other. Therefore, they are not actually opposites. The simple and uncomplex natured reasoning behind this outrageous statement is useful when trying to understand and describe Martin Heideggers deeply leveled philosophy of Being and the nothing. Lao-tzus uncomplicated rationale used in stating that supposed opposites create each other, so cannot be opposite, is not unlike Heideggers description of the similarity between the opposites Being and the nothing. Unlike Lao-tzu, Heidegger does not claim that no opposites exist. He does however say that two obviously opposite concepts are the same, and in this way, the two philosophies are similar. He believes that the separation of beings from Being creates the nothing between them. Without the nothing, Being would cease to be. If there were not the nothing, there could not be anything, because this separation between beings and Being is necessary. Heidegger even goes so far as to say that Being itself actually becomes the nothing via its essential finity. This statement implies a synonymity between the relation of life to death and the relation of Being to nothingness. To Heidegger, the only end is death. It is completely absolute, so it is a gateway into the nothing. This proposition makes Being and the nothing the two halves of the whole. Both of their roles are equally important and necessary in the cycle of life and death. Each individual life inevitably ends in death, but without this death, Life would be allowed no progression: The nothing does not merely serve as the counterconcept of beings; rather, it originally belongs to their essential unfolding as such (104). Likewise, death cannot occur without finite life. In concordance with the statement that the nothing separates beings from Being, the idea that death leads to the nothing implies that death is just the loss of the theoretical sandwich's bread slices, leaving nothing for the rest of ever. The existence of death, therefore, is much more important in the whole because it magnifies the nothing into virtually everything.
...understand that is a crucial part to Nietzsche’s very own beliefs: coming to our own conclusions, and thought, believing in what is real and understanding where we are in relation to the world. While reading this Aphorism I couldn’t help but think of this idea of authenticity in our moral views. We based many of our moral ideas on things that were put forth and set in motion before we are able to make our own conclusions on an idea. Many people relay ideas and conceptions from what others think, we understand the world based on what is told to us; therefore, are the perspectives we have really from the right frame of mind. As I mentioned before, people have many interpretations as to what something means, and I think that people should continue to become more aware of what is around them and formulate authentic experiences and ethical views from doing just that.
Take a minute to relax. Enjoy the lightness, or surprising heaviness, of the paper, the crispness of the ink, and the regularity of the type. There are over four pages in this stack, brimming with the answer to some question, proposed about subjects that are necessarily personal in nature. All of philosophy is personal, but some philosophers may deny this. Discussed here are philosophers that would not be that silly. Two proto-existentialists, Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche, were keen observers of humanity, and yet their conclusions were different enough to seem contradictory. Discussed here will be Nietzsche’s “preparatory human being” and Kierkegaard’s “knight of faith”. Both are archetypal human beings that exist in accordance to their respective philosopher’s values, and as such, each serve different functions and have different qualities. Both serve the same purpose, though. The free spirit and the knight of faith are both human beings that brace themselves against the implosion of the god concept in western society.
Seen relatively, truth and freedom according to Heidegger are demonstrators of one’s admittance into Being. Heidegger read the history of metaphysics through the filter of this perception. Heidegger believed metaphysics to have forgotten this admittance, very much because Being does have tended to verge on denial. Metaphysics remained forgetful of this admittance. He viewed Schelling’s treatise as more or less the metaphysics of evil. For Heidegger, Schelling’s concept of individual freedom does represent a strong push to break through this admittance. Heidegger explicitly stated these were reasons for why he chose Schelling’s treatise on human freedom as a subject to lecture on in 1936 . Heidegger viewed this strong
Kraus, Peter. "Heidegger on nothingness and the meaning of Being." Death and Philosophy. Ed. Jeff Malpas and Robert C. Solomon. New York: Routledge, 1998.
Rhetoric that is said to be deliberative attempts to persuade the audience to take action. The action that needs to be taken varies by example, however in the case of Martin Heidegger, he clearly advocates for mankind to retain their “essential nature”. Throughout the speech, it can be concluded that Heidegger has two main claims: that man’s autochtany (state of indigenity or belonging to a native region) is threatened by the emergence and superiority of technological advancements. He warns that man must distance himself from the bondage of technology as well as become open to the mystery of its existence. Heidegger calls this theory of his, “releasement toward things and openness to the mystery of belonging together” (Heidegger). The other claim he makes states that man must hold on to his “essential nature” – in that man is a meditative being; capable of thinking and questioning beyond what is obvious or reasonable. The evidence Heidegger uses to support these claims is riddled throughout his address as he details man’s ability to think both meditatively and calculatively. Because man has both these characteristics, it is a God-g...
In a world where bigotry, peer pressure, and incertitude circulates around society, a person can soon turn a blinds eye from who they truly are. The intention of wanting to emulate others or the desire to be liked by everyone can cause a person's mind to lead them to believe that he or she is someone other than what God has made them to be. This idea is known as conformity. A conformist is one who follows traditional standards of conducts, regardless of one’s own personal beliefs and morals. Dealing with the various societal struggles without influence of others and leading a non-conformed life is the key to succeeding in the world. Two of the most prominent advocators of leading a non-conformed life, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau, advise society to follow the ideas of being themselves in order to live meaningful lives.
Ralph Waldo Emerson, nineteenth century poet and writer, expresses a philosophy of life, based on our inner self and the presence of the soul. Emerson regarded and learned from the great minds of the past, he says repeatedly that each person should live according to his own thinking. I will try to explain Emerson’s philosophy, according to what I think he is the central theme in all his works.
Nietzsche believed we create the self through our experiences and our actions, and in order to be a complete self, we must accept everything we have done. I agree with him in this sense. Although it is easy to learn from the mistakes of others, there is no greater lesson than learning from our own mistakes. He also believed there is much more to the self than we know about. This is another example about how we learn about ourselves through our experiences and actions.
Both of these existentialists differ also when it comes to their approach to living the authentic life. Sartre has a direct approach in which he asks the individual to acknowledge death as simply another stage of life, in which one should be responsible of his own choices and not think of life as seen by others. Heidegger in the other hand, seeks to contemplate death, even if it brings anxiety, thus having to transcend the facticity that may stop us from being authentic. In other words, Sartre sees humans as the creatures that define existence, while Heidegger sees humans as merely followers of the idea of being, “Man is not the lord of beings. Man is the shepherd of Being”.
This source stimulates the philosophical concept existentialism.The stimulus gives rise to several key existential theories: facticity and freedom, the idea of existential angst and the fear of not-being-dasein. The facticity that a girl is “somebody’s daughter” and the proceeding reaction propagates the idea that our reactions to facticity come to shape who we are. The reference to “anxiety’s grip” prompts the theory of Heidegger’s theory on existential angst and how it leads us to act inauthentically. Finally, being “scared to die” provokes the thought of Heidegger’s principle that in the face of death, we must live a life that justifies our own worth.
It is accurate to suggest that an interdependent relationship exists between the individual and society. It is also accurate to state that in order for both the individual and society to flourish, the two entities must complement one another in values, beliefs and needs. It may be perceived that through carefully constructed characterisation throughout his eighteenth century novel ‘The Sufferings of Young Werther’, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe holistically depicts the way in which the relationship between society and the individual can shape the individual, how the individual, having been rejected from society, can become a body of self destruction and the way in which relationships throughout society can be shaped in response to conflicting perspectives of the individual and society as a whole.