Heidegger's Theory Of Existentialism

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.

Heidegger developed the work of Husserl who supported Des Cartes with his idea of consciousness,

Cogito Ergo Sum. Husserl went on to develop the idea of consciousness, explaining that our conscious has consciousness, our emotions. This consciousness implies that, as Plato suggests, our nature is reason, giving us a means to make rational decisions. Husserl also supported Hume’s idea that “I can never catch myself at anytime without a perception… ’Tis the composition of these, therefore, which forms the self”, so one’s self is nothing but the formulation of their “perceptions”, thus, their experiences.

Finally, Husserl stated that as people, we are subjects living in a world of objects. However, Heidegger changes this subject-object theory and instead states “Being-in is not a ‘property’ which Dasein sometimes has and sometimes does not have, and without which it could just be just as well as it could be with it.” This is due to the fact that, as Sartre distinguishes, objects have both being-in-itself and being-for-itself. Through being-in-itself, humans, via their

conscious, establish relationships with these objects and so instead of objects and subjects living separately, they live together, in Dasein.

As existentialism works on the principle that we are ultimately free, we can react to facticity, being-for-itself, in any way in which we please. We cannot attempt to justify our actions with emotions as we are responsible for the emotions we feel in the situation. The being-for-itself, facticity in this stimulus is that the girl has parents. In terms of being-in-itself, these are people that the “daughter” would like to keep happy, so she is left trying to “disguise her tears” as “they don’t ever wanna see you cry”. Existentialism may argue that she is the one choosing to suppress her emotions and it is her fault that she feels she owes it to her parents. However, this only works if we deny ourselves of human nature. If instead, we were to agree with Rousseau that we have “an innate repugnance at seeing a fellow-creature suffer”, it becomes easy to feel sorry for someone suppressing themselves to help others. However, the argument of this type of human nature does not allow for the diverse array of personalities that exist. Although I would feel an “innate repugnance” in witnessing any creature suffer, the same can hardly be said for

a mass murderer or a rapist; one could argue they would experience the repugnance if a close member of their family was harmed, but this is irrelevant as the emotions are felt due to the relationship that they had composed with said family member. Since, it thus seems impossible to define this as human nature, we must assume that her desire to please her parents has been composed due to either her relationship with them or the person she has created. In either instance, the consequences of her perceptions and her actions are hence what formed this. As we aren't bound by human nature and are hence able to define who we become, we are presented with freedom.
Being in this state of freedom, we are forced to take responsibility for all of our actions. With this responsibility, we are left with a lot of pressure resulting in existential angst. This idea is prompted by the idea of “anxiety’s grip”. It is this angst and anxiety that leads to that fact that “those who are condemned to stagnation are often pronounced happy on the pretext that happiness consists of being at rest”, being at rest being void of responsibility. The same pretext of happiness is also created when one is to act inauthentically. Heidegger feels that if we chose to avoid this angst by living in authentically, without reflection, we become fallen. Of course, when we are young, it is difficult to live authentically. However, as we mature “this process can be reversed only if we explicitly bring ourselves back from our lostness in the ‘they”. It is also important to note that “It is not about pursuing some kind of inner, true self that is separable from one’s historicity and imbedded connections”. In an inauthetinc state, one feels at home in the world; ”Only in the bright night of the nothingness of angst does the original openness of that which exist come into view as such” and thus only in a state of angst can one truly be authentic.