Wang Shijin: An Analysis of Heidegger's Thought on Authentic Human Existence — From an Analytical Perspective of Marxism
In today's world, the trend of globalization is continuously intensifying on the one hand, while on the other, people are increasingly focusing on the development of their own individuality. This means that, while temptations from the external world are significantly increasing—leading people to easily forget themselves and their original aspiration [1], such that human existence exhibits a tendency toward falling [2]—the pursuit of individuality from within is also becoming stronger, manifesting as a desire to perceive and realize one's own authentic existence. How should we understand this issue? From a Marxist perspective, the human being as an individual always exists within certain social conditions; man cannot exist in isolation from society. Therefore, Marx said that the essence of man is the ensemble of social relations. Man and society are closely linked: there is no man detached from society, and no society detached from man. This is the basic premise of our discussion of human existence. On the one hand, Marx criticized Feuerbach for "presupposing an abstract—isolated—human individual," maintaining instead that "the essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality, it is the ensemble of the social relations." On the other hand, he emphasized the free and all-round development of the person, which is the comprehensive development embodying human individuality and characteristics. How to understand the dialectical relationship between these two is a question worthy of our deep reflection. Heidegger's views on human existence—especially those regarding how to move from the falling of existence toward authentic existence—can provide us with some beneficial insights.
I. Authentic Existence and Falling are Two Fundamental Modes of Dasein's Being-in-the-World
In Heidegger's view, existence is the human mode of being. He states: "This mode of being of the human, we call existence (Existenz). Existence is possible only on the basis of an understanding of being." His study of human existence begins with "Dasein." In Heidegger’s work, Dasein actually refers to the human person—not man in a general sense, but the flesh-and-blood, living person existing here and now. The characteristic of Dasein lies in its "Thereness" (Da). Heidegger points out: "Based on the understanding of being, man is this 'There' (Da), which by its being opens up and discloses beings for the first time, so that beings as beings can show themselves to themselves. More primordial than man is the finitude of man's Dasein." The essence of Dasein lies in existence, and the authentic state of Dasein’s existence lies in its individualization and its non-substitutability. Heidegger's primary thoughts on the authentic existence of man are established on the basis of his distinction between "ontic" (ontisch) being and "ontological" (ontologisch) Being. Heidegger discusses the main ideas concerning the authentic existence of man from both ontic and ontological perspectives.
1. Dasein's Being-in-the-World
Dasein is thrown into the world at birth. In Heidegger's view, Dasein does not exist in isolation; Dasein is always Being-in-the-world. "The clarification of being-in-the-world has shown that a worldless simple subject does not first 'exist,' nor is it ever given. Similarly, an isolated 'I' without others does not, in the end, first exist." Heidegger opposes isolating Dasein and then attempting to find a passage or bridge between Dasein and the world (including inner-worldly beings) or between Dasein and others. Instead, he maintains that Dasein's Being-in-the-world is a unified phenomenon; Dasein, others, and the world are originally an undifferentiated whole. This is precisely the phenomenological foundation for the existential analytic of Dasein. For Heidegger, on the one hand, Dasein exists, and on the other, Being cannot be separated from Dasein. In Polt’s words, "Be-ing (Seyn) cannot happen without Dasein, while Dasein itself would not exist unless it responds to Be-ing. Heidegger calls this interdependence the 'Turn.' Our everyday self-interpretation fails to recognize the turn."
Heidegger believes that Dasein's existence is Dasein's Being-in-the-world. "The word-formation of the compound term 'Being-in-the-world' (In-der-Welt-sein) indicates that it signifies a unified phenomenon. This primary condition must be seen as a whole." However, this existential condition itself is first of all ontic rather than ontological, yet it serves as the foundation for the existential-ontological analysis of Dasein. Thus, "we must now see and understand these existential determinations of Dasein a priori based on this existential mechanism we call 'Being-in-the-world.' The correct starting point for the analytic work of Dasein lies in the interpretation of this mechanism."
"Being-in" (in-Sein) is different from "insideness" (Inwendigkeit). "Being-in" refers to the existential state of Dasein; it does not refer to the traditional sense of placing a human—who is supposedly independent of the world—into a world that resembles a container. There is "never such a thing as a being called 'Dasein' standing 'side-by-side' with another being called 'world'." Rather, it refers to the state in which Dasein and its world are naturally integrated into a single whole; of course, Dasein here is active. "Insideness" only refers to the relationship between two beings with spatial extension regarding their locations within that space. From an existential-ontological perspective, "Being-in" is the more primordial relationship, while "insideness" is derivative. "Being-in" is the transcendental condition that makes the traditional spatial relationship of "insideness" possible. Because "insideness" is understood and disclosed through Dasein, and Dasein must be in-the-world, "only by understanding Being-in-the-world as the essential structure of Dasein can we gain insight into the existential spatiality of Dasein."
In summary, from an existential-ontological perspective, Dasein's Being-in-the-world refers to the integration of Dasein, the world, and inner-worldly beings (also called the environment or the surrounding world), which are inseparable for even a moment. On the one hand, Dasein is the Dasein of the world; to speak of Dasein is simultaneously to posit the inner-worldly beings of the world—Dasein's existence is his world. On the other hand, the world is the world of Dasein; to speak of the world, one cannot leave out the positing of Dasein and inner-worldly beings. "If Dasein did not exist, there would be no world 'there'." This means that the understanding and interpretation of Dasein and the world are holistic and circular.
2. The Key to the Transition from Falling to Authentic Existence Lies in Dasein's Unique Understanding
Heidegger believes that Dasein, as a potentiality-for-being (Seinkönnen), is existentially the totality of possibilities for Dasein's existence as understood. These possibilities can be divided into two types: authentic and inauthentic. Both possibilities are modes of Dasein's being. The authentic state of Dasein's existence is the state of disclosure of Dasein's own possibilities, while the falling state of Dasein's existence is the disclosure of Dasein's inauthentic possibilities. The authentic mode and characteristics of Dasein's being lie in Dasein's authentic state of existence through projection, anxiety, and being-towards-death.
The ontic falling of Dasein's existence—that is, Dasein existing through idle talk, curiosity, and ambiguity—occurs because Dasein exists in everyday life in the manner of "the They" (das Man), and "Dasein is first of all 'the They' and usually remains so." This "They" marks the existential state of falling for Dasein. This falling essentially belongs to Dasein's being; as Chen Jiaying [3] states: "Falling essentially belongs to Dasein, rather than being an unfortunate stage for an individual or society that could be eliminated by cultural progress. The existential-ontological point in falling is that Dasein does not stand on its own but exists in the capacity of the crowd. Having lost its basis and departed from the true, it is called 'inauthenticity' [Uneigentlichkeit]. Correspondingly, authenticity [Eigentlichkeit] is defined as Dasein standing upon its own existence." That is to say, this falling is Dasein's inauthentic mode of being; it is not external to Dasein, but relative to Dasein's authentic mode of existence, it is derivative rather than the source, because it does not reflect Dasein's unique "There." "Heidegger understands human lifestyles through Dasein's everyday life, believing that falling is the fate of man; in falling, man loses his authentic self and becomes lost in the assimilation of 'the They.' This is an irresponsible mode of existence."
This is not to say, however, that the inauthentic mode of existence is entirely meaningless. In fact, this falling of human existence can, in a certain sense, alleviate one's psychological pressure. Especially in modern society, where the pace of life and work is very fast and pressure is immense, the mode of falling has a certain decompressing effect. "In the realm of the with-world, the question arises as to who Dasein is—that is, the question of the subject of existence... Heidegger believes that this subject is rather 'people,' or the inauthentic self. In this inauthentic self, what matters is maintaining distance from others; these others suppress any obvious exceptions, level down all possibilities of being, obscure all original paths to the matter at hand, avoid making any decisions, and cancel Dasein’s responsibility, thereby lighteing Dasein’s burden." Therefore, this inauthentic mode of existence is sometimes a choice available to the masses. It could even be said that falling is the normal state of Dasein's Being-in-the-world. "Being-in-the-world is always already fallen." Why does man not live at the source? Because man has already ek-sisted: "falling is precisely for the sake of being-in-the-world."
However, this inauthentic mode of existence fundamentally possesses major defects. For example: "People become lazy in thinking and afraid of responsibility; over time, they fall into a state of confusion, unable to judge truth, unable to manifest their own potentiality-for-being, no longer possessing firm beliefs or goals, blindly following 'the They,' living day to day without a future, only able to muddle through the rest of their lives."
Therefore, Dasein cannot remain forever fallen within "the They"; it must discover itself. This discovery of self is the existential movement from Dasein's inauthentic state into its authentic state. The key path for this transition from inauthenticity to authenticity is understanding—specifically, tearing off the disguises Dasein uses to block itself off from itself. Concretely, Dasein moves from inauthenticity to authenticity through "anticipatory resoluteness." Resoluteness means allowing oneself to be summoned from the condition of being lost in "the They." This summoning does not ontically detach Dasein completely from the world or from others; rather, "resoluteness brings the self precisely into the current concernful Being-alongside ready-to-hand things, and pushes the self into a solicitous Being-with others." Thus, it "allows others who exist with us to 'be' in their own most authentic potentiality-for-being, disclosing their potentiality-for-being through a solicitousness that is primarily liberating."
Of course, reflecting on and knowing oneself is no easy task and cannot be done by others on one's behalf. As He Lin [4] stated: "To explore the problems of human life is to have the person study and reflect upon themselves; generally, it is easy to understand external objects, but most difficult to understand oneself. Therefore, the problem of human life is truly the most difficult and not easily studied. It can be called the most important, the greatest, and the most difficult problem to answer."
Why is it that people can grasp the authentic existence of Dasein? In Heidegger's view, it is necessitated by "urgency." "Without urgency, Be-ing (Seyn) itself cannot happen. Selfhood is the 'instantaneous field of calling and belonging.' The call is the call of Be-ing; if we listen to it (hören), we belong to it (gehören). Thus, selfhood happens in the moment of the turn, in the co-belonging of Be-ing and Dasein, while urgency allows this co-belonging to occur."
II. The Unique Nature of Dasein’s (Man’s) Authentic Existence
The essence of Dasein lies in its existence; the existing Dasein possesses a non-substitutable "mineness" (Jemeinigkeit). "As the absolute gathering against this, Being has not decayed. It reveals itself in a unique terribleness." Dasein's existence is fundamentally different from the being of other inner-worldly beings, most notably in that Dasein exists ontologically; he can pursue questions and possesses various modes of being such as understanding, interpretation, and discourse. He can plan for his own existence, construct Dasein's potentiality-for-being, and take action regarding Dasein's being, whereas other inner-worldly beings do not possess these characteristics. Therefore, "Man should not be seen as an instance of a species of thing appearing together with many other things, but should be seen as a being concerned with its own being. The being of this being is in every case my being; what it is..."
"...[Wasein (what-being)] should be understood as its possible ways to be (i.e., to be in this or that way), rather than as the sum of the attributes it possesses."
Dasein exists as a "potentiality-for-being" (Seinkönnen), containing all the possibilities that can emerge in a human's existence as an individual. In Heidegger’s view, Dasein as potentiality-for-being refers ontologically to the total understood possibilities of Dasein’s existence. These possibilities can be divided into two types: the "ownmost" (본유적, eigentlich) and the "inauthentic" (비본유적, uneigentlich); both are modes of Dasein’s being. The authenticity of Dasein is the state in which Dasein’s ownmost possibilities are disclosed—that is, Dasein unfolding its own "there" (Da), the individualized existence of Dasein.
1. The Authentic Disclosure of Dasein’s State of Being: Projection
The so-called "projection" (Entwurf) in the state of existence refers to the act of throwing possibilities before oneself as possibilities within one’s "thrownness" (Geworfenheit), allowing possibility to exist as possibility. This means that Dasein’s projective activity is the process by which Dasein displays its various possibilities one by one within a space. Thus, Heidegger says: "Projection is the existential-ontological constitution of the being of the factual potentiality-for-being... to give it room to maneuver," and "as long as Dasein exists, it has always already projected itself."
We can use a metaphor to illustrate the meaning of projective activity: imagine a roll of cloth representing the various possibilities of Dasein’s existence. We unroll this cloth, spreading it out flat before us, and then we comprehend and reveal it. This is like the projective activity of Dasein’s existence. Dasein’s projective activity is the process by which Dasein, through existing, displays all its existential possibilities one by one within the immediate field of activity. However, the unrolling of the cloth comes from an external force, whereas Dasein’s existential projection stems from Dasein’s own power. With every turn of the cloth unrolled, one faces the choice of whether or not to continue. Similarly, in the field of activity, Dasein faces a choice at every step of unfolding its own "there." This is what Heidegger calls the state of "resoluteness" (Entschlossenheit).
In this state of resoluteness, conscience calls out: "The call of conscience has the character of summoning Dasein to its ownmost potentiality-for-Being-itself; and this way of being-itself is to call Dasein toward its ownmost 'being-guilty' (Schuldsein)." This existential choice of Dasein is related to its own authentic state of being; it must account for Dasein’s own responsibility, make a determination, and form a resolution. Because within the immediate space, Dasein can only unfold one possibility belonging to Dasein itself. Therefore, Heidegger says: "The call does not give any ideal, universal potentiality-for-being for one to grasp; it discloses potentiality-for-being as the immediate, individualized potentiality-for-being of the respective Dasein."
Explained positively, it is as described above. If explained negatively, Dasein’s projective activity within this state of resoluteness possesses the character of "not." This "not-character" means that in the immediate field of activity, Dasein can only disclose one existential possibility of Dasein, which implies that it simultaneously does not disclose other possibilities of Dasein—though this does not mean Dasein no longer possesses those other possibilities.
Once the roll of cloth is fully unrolled, it is completely open and presented before us. This entire projective activity of unfolding Dasein’s "there" can be understood as the revelatory activity of Dasein’s being—the so-called activity of "unconcealment" (aletheia). The purpose of unfolding the cloth is not to find pearls or other objects inside it, but rather lies in the activity of unconcealment itself. Since there is nothing else inside the rolled cloth—no pearls at all—once the cloth is fully unfolded and presented before us, the activity of unfolding is complete. Similarly, the purpose of Dasein’s existential projection or unconcealment is for Dasein to display its own "there" and its individuality—to display the ownmost possibilities belonging to itself—within the immediate space of existential activity; it is not to find some so-called "ontology" behind Dasein’s existence that lies outside the projective activity.
In Heidegger's view, the essence of Dasein lies in its existence, in Dasein’s "being-toward" (zu-Sein). This authentic existence is determined by the essence of each unique, individual Dasein, rather than by other external causes. Thus, he points out: "Dasein's devising a plan according to which it organizes its own being is something entirely different from the activity of projection." Dasein’s existential projection is to allow Dasein to become what it is, whereas "devising a plan" and then executing it is imposed on Dasein from the outside. The former is immanent to life, while the latter is external to life; the two must not be conflated.
2. The Existential Fundamental State of Dasein: Anxiety
In addition to unfolding the authentic state of Dasein's being in terms of its existential state, Heidegger believes that the authentic state of this existence is unfolded through "anxiety" (Angst). He says: "Anxiety throws Dasein back upon that which it is anxious about—its authentic potentiality-for-being-in-the-world. Anxiety individualizes Dasein to its ownmost being-in-the-world, which, as understanding, projects itself essentially upon possibilities. Therefore, that which anxiety is anxious about discloses Dasein as 'being-possible' (Möglichsein); it discloses Dasein as something that can only exist from its own side as an individual Dasein in its individualization." This means that in the process of individualizing into its ownmost being-in-the-world, the ownmost possibilities of Dasein that Dasein grasps are precisely a kind of "mood" (Stimmung) grasped within its projective activity in the world.
Whenever Dasein’s projective activity in the world unfolds its ownmost possibilities in the immediate space, it always faces a choice and always feels a sense of responsibility or guilt. Every time Dasein faces the disclosure of the "freedom for the choice and mastery of itself" [5]—the freedom of being—it always feels an unnamable dread, which is anxiety.
This anxiety does not come from the outside world but from Dasein’s being itself. Heidegger says: "In anxiety, the ready-to-hand things of the environment and, generally, intra-world entities sink away. The 'world' can offer nothing more, nor can the 'Being-with-others' (Mit-Dasein) of others. Thus, anxiety robs Dasein of the possibility of understanding itself in a 'falling' (Verfallen) manner from the perspective of the 'world' and public talk." Precisely because anxiety refers to Dasein grasping itself in the disclosure of its ownmost possibilities rather than displaying itself from the perspective of the world and the public, anxiety is internal to Dasein. That is to say, without the company of the world and other intra-world entities, Dasein stands alone, completely exposed to the light of day, unshielded by other entities, experiencing a mood of dread that comes entirely from within itself. Heidegger calls this condition "not-being-at-home" (Nicht-zuhause-sein).
For this reason, Heidegger specifically distinguishes between anxiety (Angst) and fear (Furcht). Anxiety is a mood grasped by Dasein from its own possibilities during the projective activity of authentically displaying its possibilities. Thus, it has no external object and comes entirely from the existential projection of being-in-the-world itself. Fear, however, is different; it is an inauthentic state of being that possesses an object. "That which can be 'fearful,' and which is revealed in fear, always comes from intra-world entities." That is to say, the mood of fear stems from the fear of intra-world entities; the object of fear is "an intra-world entity, coming from a certain place, approaching in the vicinity, a harmful entity." It is worth noting that these intra-world entities are non-Dasein entities—beings outside of Dasein. "That which fear fears is 'the fearful thing' itself; these things encountered within the world possess the modes of being of the ready-to-hand, the present-at-hand, and Being-with-others." The reason Dasein feels fear toward the mode of "Being-with-others" is that it fears its coexistence with others, fearing that these others will tear themselves away. Furthermore, "we must not grasp this 'capacity for fear' in an ontic sense as an individual's 'factual temperament,' but rather as an existential possibility."
3. The Most Profound Manifestation of Dasein's Authentic Existence: "Being-toward-death"
Death is the possibility of being that Dasein itself always has to take upon itself, because Dasein's death indicates that Dasein no longer possesses the possibility of potentiality-for-being. Dasein’s other ownmost possibilities cannot surpass the possibility of death; "death reveals itself as the most ownmost, non-relational, and insuperable possibility." This means that death is a possibility for which no other Dasein can serve as a substitute. While other possibilities of Dasein might be substituted, Dasein’s death signifies the end of Dasein’s being; no one can transcend the possibility of death to avoid it. Moreover, as long as Dasein exists, it is already thrown into this possibility. It is important to note that the anxiety toward death (Angst) should not be confused with the fear of passing away (Furcht). Anxiety toward death is not a casual or accidental "weak" emotion of an individual, but the basic "attunement" (Befindlichkeit) of Dasein; it unfolds the condition of Dasein’s existence as a being thrown toward its end. Anxiety toward death is one of Dasein’s internal existential modes, whereas fear of passing away treats death as something external, representing a "weak" emotion displayed in the face of death.
As long as Dasein exists, it is factically dying, but "first and foremost" [6] it dies in the manner of falling (Verfallen). Dasein first and foremost conceals its most ownmost being-toward-death by fleeing before death. In daily life, we often see this or that person, close or distant, pass away; every day and every hour, strangers are dying. But the meaning of these words seems to be: "one day everyone must die, but it hasn't happened to me yet." Thus, death is understood as something indeterminate; most importantly, it is something that must arrive from somewhere else, but since it has not yet become real for the specific "self," it does not yet constitute a threat. Every other person and the self can say convincingly: "Someone died; it wasn't exactly me, but 'They' (das Man)." This "They" is the "Nobody." In this way, "death" is leveled down into an event present-at-hand; although it strikes Dasein, it does not belong "ownmostly" to anyone. The "They" provides approval for this and increases the temptation to hide one’s ownmost being-toward-death from oneself. Regarding this, Stegmüller says: "For finite consciousness, the consciousness of death is essential. Because nothing else can throw a person out of their daily life like death, nothing else can force a person to realize their limits like death, and yet nothing else can increase a person's awareness of the necessity of existential commitment (der existenzielle Einsatz) like death."
However, "Dasein, as ownmost, is factically always already dying; that is to say, it is always already existing in a being-toward-death." The specific quality within the certainty of death that the "They" conceals is that death is possible at any and every moment. Death, as the end of Dasein, is what Heidegger calls Dasein’s most ownmost, non-relational, certain—yet in itself indeterminate—and insuperable possibility. Death as the end of Dasein exists within that being’s being-toward-its-end. Being-toward-death, as "anticipating" (Vorlaufen) into the possibility, is what makes this possibility possible and liberates it as a possibility. This death demands Dasein as something individual and internal. That is to say, the death understood in anticipation individualizes Dasein down to itself; only then can Dasein exist authentically as itself. This is because "authentic existence is realized in despair; for whoever falls completely into despair gains their authentic self."
III. Real Human Existence is the Dialectical Unity of Individuality and Sociality
From Heidegger’s discussion of Dasein’s existence above, we can see that he places great importance on individual existence—that is, human existence. Although he also emphasizes "Being-with-others" (Mit-Dasein) and "Being-with" (Mitsein), Dasein remains primary. As Chen Jiaying [7] said: "No matter how much he wishes to emphasize the determinacy of Being-with, in reality, he still treats Dasein as something prior to others and to Being-with." In reality, the actual existence of human beings is both individual and social. According to the Marxist perspective, human existence is a dialectical unity of individuality and sociality.
1. Comprehending the Meaning and Responsibility of Individual Human Existence
The authentic existence of the human being of which Heidegger speaks emphasizes the priority of the individuality of Dasein—that is, the idea that Dasein possesses an irreplaceable and unique advantage in terms of questioning and comprehending the meaning of Being. To use Dasein to comprehend and reveal the meaning of Being, one must first comprehend the existence of Dasein itself; only in the state of authentic existence can one comprehend that unique “Da” [8] from its source. Therefore, Dasein’s resolve, projection, anxiety, and being-toward-death are all individual and non-substitutable. It is evident that Dasein’s status in Heidegger’s eyes differs from that of other entities [9], to the extent that some have used this to attack him: "In Heidegger’s view, man is concerned with his own being; this point may become the basis for the accusation that only a person with an egocentric perspective is the starting point of Heidegger's analysis."
In fact, while this accusation grasps certain directional characteristics of Heidegger's thought, it does not fully correspond to reality. The reason is that although Heidegger values the priority of Dasein and emphasizes the distinction between Dasein and entities within-the-world, he never claimed that the questioning of the meaning of Being should be egocentric. He opposed centering on Dasein while other entities merely revolve around it; instead, he emphasized the unity of Dasein’s Being-in-the-world, highlighting Being-with [10] and Dasein-with [11].
From a Marxist perspective, society is indeed composed of individual human beings; it can be said that without individual people, there would be no society. Marx does not deny the individual person or their particularity. He stated: "Man is a unique individual, and it is precisely his particularity which makes him an individual, and a real, individual social being. He is equally the totality, the ideal totality, the subjective existence of imagined and experienced society for itself; just as he exists in the real world both as awareness and real enjoyment of social existence, and as a totality of human manifestation of life." The development of the individual is the condition for the development of the whole society. Therefore, when the quality of individuals is improved, a foundation is provided for the development of the entire society. As Marx and Engels said: "The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals." Further: "In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."
Regarding human existence, the comprehension of the meaning of individual existence can only rely on the individual themselves. Others may sometimes provide inspiration, but they cannot act as a substitute. As He Lin [12] said: "Poignant problems of life must entirely await one’s own reflection, observation, and self-sought answers. Others can at most fulfill the responsibility of reminding and inspiring; beyond this, they are truly powerless." The comprehension, remembrance, and realization of ideals and missions are inseparable from individual effort. No matter how lofty the ideal or how sublime the mission, its realization must ultimately be implemented through the individual person. "Man’s mission or vocation can also be called the ideal of life. However, while a mission is ideal, it is simultaneously real; it is a mission that we are executing and must execute here and now. Ideals are free—I can freely propose this or that ideal; but a mission is determined, or one might almost say it is a 'Heavenly Mandate' [13] that man cannot control and must obey. Ideals are subjectively established, while missions are objectively endowed—given by the state, given by the times, or endowed by superiors." We must keep firmly in mind the missions endowed by the Party, the state, the people, and the New Era, and implement them through solid practical actions. This is a responsibility that each of us must shoulder.
2. Dasein-with and Being-with
Heidegger opposed the practice of first isolating the subject and object as premises and then seeking a path for their unification. In his view, man always lives within the world; man and the world are an inseparable whole. Man and the world are fused into one, rather than man existing in isolation outside the world, or standing above the world, or hiding behind the world.
Regarding the state of Being, Heidegger believed that the existence of entities within-the-world was self-evident, though this changed somewhat in his later period. However, ontologically speaking, entities within-the-world are not self-evident; they must be revealed through Being-with with Dasein. Meanwhile, the currently ready-to-hand [14] and present-at-hand [15] entities within-the-world can also report the existence of others. Heidegger believed this is possible because of the "mutual encountering" of Dasein and entities within-the-world.
The process of Dasein dealing with entities within-the-world (which can also be called equipment or nature) in the surrounding world is the process of Dasein’s "concern" [16] in the world. Within concern, even if a currently ready-to-hand entity within-the-world represents something, such as a clock, "in the use of the clock-equipment which is currently and unobtrusively ready-to-hand, the surrounding natural world is also ready-to-hand." Therefore, since currently ready-to-hand entities within-the-world can be revealed, other entities within-the-world can also be revealed. Dasein deals with entities within-the-world through readiness-to-hand and presence-at-hand, but this does not mean Dasein exists in isolation outside of these entities; rather, it exists within a unified world. "Being-with is a fundamental characteristic of Dasein. Even if no one else is present, Dasein’s Being is still Being-with. Heidegger did not wish to posit an isolated subject first and then append an isolated 'other thing' or 'other person' around this subject."
Furthermore, when Dasein deals with equipment, it also "encounters" [17] other people. This mutual encounter between Dasein and others is reported through entities within-the-world that are not of the Dasein-type. This must also be interpreted from this perspective in terms of existential ontology. "The world is always already the world which I share with others. The world of Dasein is a shared world." The existence of Dasein with other Daseins in this world through the mode of concern is called the "Dasein-with" of others. "The Being-in-itself of others within the world is Dasein-with." The world is not only open to one Dasein but also to other Dasein-like entities. In other words, the fact that Dasein encounters others within this world in a mode of Being-in-the-world refers to the situation described above.
Dasein can discover the Dasein of others through entities within-the-world, and "Dasein first discovers ‘itself’ in what it manages, uses, expects, and avoids—in the things ready-to-hand in the surrounding world that are first encountered through concern." This means that Dasein usually and currently understands itself from its own world, while the Dasein-with of others is often encountered through ready-to-hand entities within-the-world. This encounter with others is not an encounter with them as "present-at-hand person-objects," but rather involves meeting them first in their Being-in-the-world. "The Dasein-with of others is disclosed within the world for a Dasein, and thus also for those who are 'with' it, only because Dasein in itself is essentially Being-with."
3. Integrating the "Small Self" into the "Greater Self" to Achieve Dialectical Unity
Heidegger comprehends and reveals Being through Dasein, making the importance of Dasein self-evident. Although he also speaks of Dasein-with and Being-with, their effect on Dasein is much lower than Dasein’s effect on them. Dasein is thrown into the world; a prerequisite for existence within the world is that one must have the material means of life. If one does not even have the most basic necessities of life, then nothing else can be discussed, and this point should receive our high attention. Marxism holds that human existence is inseparable from existing social material conditions. The essence of man is, in its reality, the ensemble of social relations. The social mode of production determines man’s mode of existence. Marx and Engels stated:
"The first premise of all human existence, and therefore of all history, is that men must be in a position to live in order to be able to 'make history.' But life involves before everything else eating and drinking, a habitation, clothing and many other things. The first historical act is thus the production of the means to satisfy these needs, the production of material life itself. And indeed this is an historical debt which, today as thousands of years ago, must daily and hourly be fulfilled merely in order to sustain human life." That is to say, whether it is authentic existence or inauthentic existence, the production of material means is the most fundamental condition. Without this, nothing can be discussed. This is the most basic viewpoint of Marxism.
Furthermore, in the Marxist view, people’s material productive activities and material life are unified: "By producing their means of subsistence men are indirectly producing their actual material life." Strictly speaking, the mode of material production is more fundamental, as it determines people's mode of life. Who individuals are "coincides with their production, both with what they produce and with how they produce. The nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their production."
In the process of production and life, people need to interact with one another. Various exchanges inevitably occur, forming various relations and communities. The relationship between the individual and society is extremely close; the "abstract individual" is merely a hypothesis of theoretical life and does not exist in reality. The degree of dependence of individual existence on society increases as society develops, and the significance of the community to individual existence becomes increasingly important. "Only in community [with others has each] individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions; only in the community, therefore, is personal freedom possible. ... In the real community the individuals obtain their freedom in and through their association." Therefore, we must oppose egocentrism and extreme individualism while promoting collectivism. In reality, there are no isolated individuals detached from society, and there is no hollow society detached from individuals. Adhering to the organic dialectical unity of the individual and society is the correct Marxist view.
In short, how to achieve the unity of sensing the authentic self and integrating into the world is a very important question. Combined with China’s reality, this means handling the dialectical relationship between the "Small Self" (xiǎo wǒ) and the "Greater Self" (dà wǒ) [18]. Here, the individual person is actually the "Small Self," while society (especially the state and the people) is the "Greater Self." Regarding this, General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out in his speech at the centenary of the May Fourth Movement: "Young people will have different life goals and career choices, but only by integrating one's 'Small Self' into the 'Greater Self' of the motherland and the people, keeping pace with the times and sharing the same fate as the people, can one better realize the value of life and sublimate its realm. Departing from the needs of the motherland and the interests of the people, any self-admiration will only lead into a narrow world that grows ever smaller." [19]
This points the way for us in handling the dialectical relationship between human individuality and sociality.
(Author's affiliation: Institute of Marxism Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences) Online Editor: Zhang Jian Source: Jianghan Tribune, Issue 5, 2020