A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY
OF THE PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT
OF THE
ST. VINCENT FERRER SEMINARY
IN FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE
BACHELOR OF ARTS MAJOR IN PHILOSOPHY
SUBMITTED BY
KRISTOFFER LORENZ LEGISLADOR BASBAÑO
MARCH 9, 2013
Dasein, a human being, “is essentially in the world. 'Being-in-the-world' (In-der-Welt-sein) is equivalent to Dasein. Only Dasein is in the world.”[1] Other beings that are not Dasein are “being-within-the-world.” “Being-within-the-world” refers to the things or entities that are part of the world (e.g. stones, mountains, animals). Dasein, which is a human being, is “being-in-the-world.” Dasein is not part of the world but it needs the world for its “being-in” needs the world. “Heidegger has three concepts referring to Dasein’s attitude to the world. These are Care (Sorge), Concern (Besorge) and Solicitude (Fürsorge). Care is the dominant member of the triad but inseparable from the others. Concern and solicitude are constitutive of care.”[2] “Standing on one's own two feet is Sorge.”[3] Concern is care for things while Solicitude is care for persons.
“Dasein is always its possibility. It does not “have” that possibility only as mere attribute of something objectively present. And because Da-sein is always essentially its possibility, it can “choose” itself in its being, it can win itself, it can lose itself or it can never and only “apparently” win itself. It can only have lost itself and it can only have not yet gained itself because it is essentially possible as authentic, that is, it belongs to itself.”[4]
Another existential feature of Dasein is “Being-towards-Death.” It is a basic state of the Dasein. “As ‘potentiality-for-being,’ Dasein cannot outstrip the possibility of death. Death is the possibility of the absolute imposibility of Dasein.”[5] “With death, Dasein stands before itself in its ownmost ‘potentiality-for-Being.’ This is a possibilitility in which the issue is nothing less than Dasein’s ‘Being-in-the-world.’ Its death is the possibility of ‘no-longer-being-able-to-be-there.’”[6]
I.) Dasein as “Being-There”
Dasein is a combination of two german words: “da” and “Sein.” In german language, “da” means “there” or “here” and “Sein” means “to be” or “being.” “Dasein is Heidegger’s way of referring both to the human being and to the type of being that humans have. It comes from the verb ‘dasein,’ which means ‘to exist’ or ‘to be there, to be here.’ The noun Dasein is used by other philosophers, by Kant for example, for the existence of any entity. But Heidegger restricts it to human being.”[7] The “here” and “there” refers to the world. There is no “here” and “there” without the world, wherein there is space and time.
“The ‘essence’ of Dasein lies in its existence.”[8] It is different from what other philosophers say, that “existence precedes essence.” Dasein’s essence lies in its existence because it cannot be defined as long as it exists. As long as it exists, Dasein continues to change from time to time. As long as “in-the-world,” Dasein is prone for infinite possibilities. The only time that Dasein can be fully and authentically defined is in its death.
For Heidegger, “Dasein has no essence or nature in the way that other entities do. Dasein's only characteristic is to be, i.e. to exist in the traditional sense.”[9] Dasein has no “what is” (essence). It only “is” (existence). “Dasein is always its possibility. It does not “have” that possibility only as mere attribute of something objectively present. And because Da-sein is always essentially its possibility, it can “choose” itself in its being, it can win itself, it can lose itself or it can never and only “apparently” win itself. It can only lose itself and it can only not yet gain itself because it is essentially possible as authentic, that is, it belongs to itself.”[10] Dasein controls its “becoming.” It (Dasein) is the captain of its existence (controls where to go). The “being-mine” of the Dasein makes authenticity and inauthenticity possible. For Heidegger, “authenticity” is not a project. It is a structure which can be achieved in death. “The inauthenticity of Dasein does not signify a “lesser” being or a “lower” degree of being. Rather, inauthenticity can determine Dasein even in its fullest concretion, when it is busy, excited, interested and capable of pleasure.”[11] Dasein is “inauthentic” as long as it exists.
A.) Being
“The question that fascinated Heidegger throughout his long philosophic life can be stated simply: ‘What is the meaning of being?’ Ontology, in the widest possible sense, was his main concern throughout his life. This does not mean, of course, that he was forever looking for an answer to the same old question.”[12] Ontology and the question on being is the core focus of his philosophy.
Ontology has for its object being as existing and its categories. It is the study of entities and reality. It focuses on foundations of reality and, thus, it is foundational philosophy. It asks questions about being, substance, existence, essence, identity, physical objects, properties, accidents and universals. It classifies objects into concrete, abstract, existent, nonexistent, real, ideal, independent and dependent. Thus, it has different types such as formal (and material/regional), descriptive and formalized ontologies.[13]
“Heidegger often calls being in the predicative sense 'What-being' (Was-sein), since it says what something is, and being in the existential sense 'That-being' (Dass-sein), since it says that something is; occasionally he distinguishes the What-being of something, it’s essential features (the materiality of a chalk), from its So-being (Sosein), its contingent features (its whiteness).”[14]
B.) World
“In Being and Time the poles of Heidegger's universe are man (Dasein) and world.” [15] “For Heidegger, there are three notions of world: (a) BEINGs as a whole; (b) the community of men; and, most satisfactorily, (c) men in relation to beings as a whole.”[16] The world is part of the Dasein’s structure as “being-in-the-world.” Dasein is always in the world. There is no Dasein outside the world. The nature of Dasein is to be in the world (as a structure-“being-in-the-world”). Man as Dasein is in the world. “Non-human entities are said to be ‘within the world,’ ‘within-the-world’ (innerweltlich), or ‘belonging to the world’ (weltzugehörig), but never ‘worldly’ or ‘in the world.’”[17]
C.) Dasein as “Being-in-the-World”
Dasein, a human being, “is essentially in the world. 'Being-in-the-world' (In-der-Welt-sein) is equivalent to Dasein. Only Dasein is in the world.”[18] Other beings that are not Dasein are “being-within-the-world.” “Being-within-the-world” refers to the things or entities that are part of the world (e.g. stones, mountains, animals). Dasein, which is a human being, is “being-in-the-world.” Dasein is not part of the world but it needs the world for its “being-in” needs the world.
“Dasein and the world are not two distinct entities that can vary independently of each other. They are complementary.”[19] Dasein is a “being-in-the-world.” Dasein is always in the world. It can never get out of the world. “Dasein, whether in its average everydayness or otherwise, is in the world. Stones, trees, cows and hammers are also in the world (but “within-the-world” because they are part of the world). And Dasein too is in the world in the way they are. But Dasein is also in the world in another sense, a sense in which other entities, even cows, are not. Dasein, unlike a stone, a tree, or a cow, is aware of and familiar with the world, aware of other things in the world and of itself, and it is so in virtue of its ‘understanding of being.’” [20] Only Dasein is capable of understanding the being.
II.) Mitsein: A Relational Dasein
Mitsein is a combination of two german words, ‘mit’ and ‘Sein’. In german language, ‘mit’ means ‘with’ and ‘Sein’ means ‘to be’ or ‘being.’ Mitsein means “to be with” or “being-with.” Dasein as “being-in-the-world” is with other Dasein. Dasein is capable of “being-with” other Dasein (Mitdasein). As long as Dasein exists, it is “with others.” “It knows what another person is as well as it knows itself, or any other entity. It does not need to inspect the details of a person’s physique to discover that it is a person.”[21] It shows that Dasein is a relational being. Dasein is living in the world and living with other Dasein. It’s “being-in-the-world” is useless and senseless without “being-with.”
A.) “Being-With”
“Dasein alone is incomplete, it has no nature of its own in which to bask, but has to describe how to be. But then virtually everything Dasein does or is cries out for others, as suppliers of its raw materials, as purchasers of its products, as hearers, or as readers. Dasein’s world is essentially a public world, accessible to others as well as itself.”[22] Dasein needs others. It is its nature to relate with other Daseins. It longs to “be-with” others.
Dasein is a relational being. It is a “being-in-the-world” with other being. Because of its “being-in-the-world,” it is capable of relating, or extending itself to other Dasein. Dasein is “being-with” other Daseins (Mitdasein). The world makes possible their “being-with.” Without the world, there will be no “being-with” among Daseins because the world is a ground where Daseins are placed. Communion and relationship is possible among Daseins through the world. “The Dasein is a worldly being capable of “being-with” others because of its “being-in” the world. The world of Da-sein is a “with-world.” “Being-in” is “being-with” others.”[23]
B. Dasein’s Being as “Care”
One of the existential features of Dasein relating to its “being-in-the-world” is care. “Care is properly the anxiety, worry arising out of apprehensions concerning the future and refers as much to the external cause as the inner state. The verb “sorgen” is “to care” in two senses: (a) “sich sorgen um” is to worry, be worried about something; (b) “sorgen firis” to take care of, see to, provide for someone or something.”[24] “Heidegger has three concepts referring to Dasein’s attitude to the world. These are Care (Sorge), Concern (Besorge) and Solicitude (Fürsorge). Care is the dominant member of the triad but inseparable from the others. Concern and solicitude are constitutive of care.”[25] “Standing on one's own two feet is Sorge.”[26] Concern is care for things while Solicitude is care for persons.
1.) Concern
“Besorgen is introduced as a general term for Dasein's multifarious dealings with things in the world: ‘having to do with something, producing something.’”[27] Concern is “taking care” of things or equipment. It is in the mode of “something” and not of “someone.” “The term ‘taking care’ has initially its prescientific meaning and can imply: carrying something out, settling something, ‘to straighten it out.’ The expression could also mean to take care of something in the sense of ‘getting it for oneself.’”[28] Getting something for oneself is accomplishing something or finding out something. “The deficient modes of omitting, neglecting, renouncing, resting are also ways of taking care of something, in which the possibilities of taking care are kept to a ‘bare minimum.’”[29]
2.) Solicitude
Fürsorge is care in the mode of “someone” and not of “something.” Solicitude is the care for persons and not of equipment. “Solicitude has two extreme possibilities. It can so to speak, take the other’s “care” away from him and put itself in his place in taking care, it can leap in for him.”[30] “Solicitude takes over what is to be taken care of for the other.”[31] “In this concern, the other become one who is dependent and dominated.”[32] “In contrast to this, there is the possibility of a concern which does not so much leap in for the other as leap ahead of him, not in order to take “care” away from him, but first to give it back to him as such.”[33]
III.) The Possibility of the Language of Dasein
Language is essentially related to beings and to man. Language is often regarded as a possession, a tool, or a work of man. Since its relation to man is so intimate, language is even taken as a symbol of man: just as man has a body, soul and spirit, so language has a body (the audible word), a soul (the mood, feeling-tone, etc. of a word), and a spirit (the thought or represented content).[34]
Dasein alone is incomplete without others and without language. Language makes Dasein capable of relating with other Daseins. By the help of language, Dasein’s feelings and thoughts can be expressed and communicated with other Daseins through the use of the words (in the part of the speaker) that can properly capture the sense of the things they wanted to communicate and through the hearing, understanding and interpretation of the other Dasein (in the part of the listener). Language allows man to build relationships with others. It is not for its self alone because Dasein knows and understands what it feels and what it thinks. There is a craving in the Dasein to express his feelings and thoughts to other Daseins. There is no other way than language. With language, Dasein is extending towards others.
A.) Language towards the “nosology” of Dasein
The word “nosology” came from the Latin word “nos” which means “we” ang Greek word “logos” which means “word.” “nosology” is a philosophical word which refers to “the study of the ‘we.’” This study and structure was made by Rev. Fr. Domingo Rafael Alimajen, an Ilonggo priest and philosopher. This is in contrast to the egologic paradigm of the western philosophers. He also invented a word “Akitalibutan.” “In the ‘Akitalibutan,’ the ‘kita’ is the central focus of the term itself. The ‘ako’ and the ‘kalibutan’ are both anchored in the ‘kita,’ as read,it is the only ‘readable’ word at the center of the term ‘Akitalibutan.’ It is made that way so that the centrality of the ‘we’ will be emphasized. But the ‘we’ of the ‘Akitalibutan’ is the concrete embodied ‘we’ of human community.”[35]
Language is towards the “Nosology” of the Dasein. It is towards the “nosology” which refers to a concrete real community. The use of language, by the use of the words that can be understood by the Daseins, is the start of the manifestation of “nosology.” Dasein does not remain in “being-in.” It desires to “be-with.” “Being-in” is useless without “being-with.” Aside from “being-with,” Dasein longs to build relationships. “Being-with” alone cannot make up a relationship. In order for Dasein to relate with other Daseins, it needs to use language. Language is the medium that can bridge Dasein to other Daseins. Through language, Dasein can express his feelings and thoughts to other Daseins.
B.) The “Meontology” of the Language of Dasein
“‘Meontology’ comes from the Greek word μέ, which means ‘non,’ òν, which means ‘being,’ and λόγος, which means ‘word.’ It is the study or science of non-being or un-being; of what lies beyond Being; a kind of non-ontological metaphysics.”[36] “μέ-òν denies the actual but not the possible existence of things (in thought, but not actual).”[37]
There is a “Meontology” in the language of the Dasein. There is a possibility for the denial of being in language because there is a tendency for language to be ambiguous (ambiguity in language is done by the subject, which is a Dasein, by using ambiguous words) and to be misinterpreted (misinterpretation by the receiver, which is also a Dasein- wherein the sense is not passed by the speaker to the receiver). There are times that Dasein’s language can be understood differently or can be misunderstood by other Daseins. If the words used by the speaker are not familiar, then there is ambiguity which will surely result in misinterpretation. If the words are not well heard or heard differently, there is misunderstanding in the part of the receiver. That is why, saying, hearing, understanding and interpretation are very important elements in communication.
Aside from the denial of being through the use of ambiguous words (of the subject which is a Dasein) or through the misinterpretation of the receiver of language (of the receiver which is a Dasein), “meontology” happens especially when the words used (by the subject, which is a Dasein) does not fit or capture the thought that it (word) represents. There are times that the subject, which is a Dasein, would find it hard to supply words that are proper to represent the sense of the thought that Dasein wants to communicate to other Daseins. With this, there is a possibility for the imprecision in words used that represents the sense of the thought of Dasein. This is a manifestation of “meontology” in the language of the Dasein wherein the “on,” which is the sense of the thought of Dasein, is being denied by the “me”, which is the word that does not properly represent the sense of the thought of Dasein.
IV.) “Being-Towards-Death”
Another existential feature of Dasein is “Being-towards-Death.” It is a basic state of the Dasein. “As ‘potentiality-for-being,’ Dasein cannot outstrip the possibility of death. Death is the possibility of the absolute imposibility of Dasein.”[38] “With death, Dasein stands before itself in its ownmost ‘potentiality-for-Being.’ This is a possibilitility in which the issue is nothing less than Dasein’s ‘Being-in-the-world.’ Its death is the possibility of ‘no-longer-being-able-to-be-there.’”[39] “As long as Dasein is (exists) as an entity, it has never reached its ‘wholeness.’ But if it gains such ‘wholeness,’ this gain becomes the utter loss of ‘Being-in-the-World.’ In such a case, it can never be again experienced as an entity.”[40] In reaching its wholeness in death, it is not longer a Dasein because it is a “Being-no-longer-in-the-world.” In death, is the achievement of the “wholeness” and the “fullness” of Dasein.
A.) The Temporality of Dasein
The literal meaning of Dasein is “to be here” and “to be there.” Its “being-(t)here” would mean that Dasein as a being is in a space. That is why, Dasein is a “Being-in-the-World.” Because of its “Being-in-the-World,” it can move from here to there and from there to here. “The here and there of motion is possible because of a before and an after. Before, it is here; then after, it is there. Before it is there, now it is here, and then it is there again. The movement in space creates a consciousness of time, or more precisely, the movement in the space is due to time. Every movement is timed. If there is no movement, then it means there is no time. Since in the world there is space, and in space there is movement, then in the world there is time.”[41] Dasien is a “Being-in-the-World” that is timed. As a “Being-in-the-World” that is timed, Dasein is temporal.
B.) “Inauthenticity” of Dasein as “Meontology”
If the μέ (me) of òν (on) is μέòν (meon), the negative of being, then there is “meontology.” “Meontology” is the denial of the being. The μέòν (meon) is “nothing.”
Heidegger’s “authenticity” is not the same to that of other existentialists. “Authenticity” of Dasein can be achieved in death. Other existentialists would refer “authenticity” as a project in one’s life (project in the sense that man has to do something in order to be “authentic”) .With this, as long as Dasein exists, it is “inauthentic.” Dasein is “inauthentic” as long as it lives because it is open more for possibilities which causes the non-actuality of its “wholeness” and “fullness.” Even though the fulfillment of being “fully-defined” is not actual, it is still possible (for Dasein to be “fully-defined”). That is why, Dasein’s “inauthenticity” is a manefistation of “meontology,” which is a denial of being. “Authenticity” can only be actual in death. “The inauthenticity of Dasein does not signify a “lesser” being or a “lower” degree of being. Rather, inauthenticity can determine Dasein even in its fullest concretion, when it is busy, excited, interested and capable of pleasure.”[42] “Inauthenticity” is the basis of “authenticity.”
C.) “Authenticity” of “Dasein” and the “Me-meontology” in Death
If the μέ (me) of òν (on) is μέòν (meon), the negative of being, then there is “meontology.” “Meontology” is the denial of the being. The μέòν (meon) is “nothing.” But if there is a “μέ” (me) of “μέòν” (meon), then there is “ .”[43] “Me-meontology” is the study of the “denial” of the denial of being. It is “nothing” that is being denied.
Dasein can only be “authentic” in death because it is the time wherein it can be fully defined, where in “becoming” is impossible. It cannot “become” because death stops all the possibilities of Dasein. With this, “me-meontology” happens in Dasein’s death because death denies the “meontology” in Dasein which is its “inauthenticity.” “Inauthenticity” is the “meontology” in Dasein. Death denies the “inauthenticity” of Dasein. In death, “authenticity” is achieved.
Death as “me-meontology,” is the denial of “inauthenticity” (as “inauthenticity” is the “meontology”). “Inauthenticity” denies the òν (on) which is the “authenticity.” Death denies the denial of “authenticity.” “Authenticity,” as the one being denied by the first “me,” can only be achieved in death. It is in death wherein Dasein becomes “authentic.” When Dasein dies, it achieves its “fullness” and “wholeness.” In death, Dasein is “fully-defined.” But ironically, ones it achieves its “authenticity,” it is not already a Dasein because it is no longer in the world. In reaching its wholeness in death, it is no longer a Dasein because it is a “Being-no-longer-in-the-world.”
D.) Dasein as Towards “Nosology”
Through death, “Dasein” (is) a “Being-no-longer-in-the-World.” The question is, after its “Being-in-the-World,” does “Dasein” goes to a “world” beyond this world? Is there really a “world” beyond this world? The answer is no. The world is only a world if there is consciousness in the part of man (who is a Dasein). “Dasein, unlike a stone, a tree, or a cow, is aware of and familiar with the world, aware of other things in the world and of itself.”[44] While a Dasein, it is conscious of its world (material world). Its consciousness of the world includes time for the world is timed. Its consciousness is also world and time (not pure Heidegger). “Its consciousness is world, the totality of what it is conscious of. Its consciousness is time, the totality of the flow in the world, including the flow itself.”[45] Then there is no “world” beyond this world because when Dasein dies, its consciousness also stops. There is a no “world” beyond this world but there is a “Time” beyond the worldly time. It is possible that Dasein goes in this “Time” when it dies. This is the “Time” of the time of the world. “This is the ‘time’ that is not the worldly time, but makes the worldly time possible.”[46] For the time, as in time of the world to move, there must be something that is not moving, that is in “freeze.” It is the “Time” of the time of the world. The “Time” of the time of the world is parallel to the “We” and “Nothing.” This is the ground of everything “that is” and “that is not.” The “We-Time” (is) neither an essense nor existence. It (is) “Nothing.” It (is) beyond “understanding” and beyond words to describe.“It is ‘standing in’ or ‘instance.’ In an ‘instance,’ one cannot understand because understanding is a product of reflection, and in an ‘instance,’ there is no reflection but just a ‘standing.’” [47]
Conclusion
Dasein is “inauthentic” as long as it lives because it is open for possibilities which causes the non-actuality of its “wholeness” and “fullness.” Dasein’s “inauthenticity” is a manefistation of “meontology,” which is a denial of being. “Authenticity” can only be actual in death. “The ‘inauthenticity’ of Dasein does not signify a ‘lesser’ being or a ‘lower’ degree of being. Rather, ‘inauthenticity’ can determine Dasein even in its fullest concretion, when it is busy, excited, interested and capable of pleasure.”[48] Even though Dasein is “inauthentic” as it long as it lives, it is in the time of its being “inauthentic” that it can experience an actual communion with other Daseins. “Being-with” happens in the time when the “Dasein” is “inauthentic.” As a “Being-in-the-with-World,” Dasein is a “Being-with-Others-in-the-World.” “Being-with-Others-in-the-World” is a manifestation of “nosology,” an experience of a concrete real community of persons. “Being-with-Others-in-the-World” is a “we-experience.”
Dasein can only be “authentic” in death because it is the time wherein it can be fully-defined, wherein “becoming” is impossible. It cannot “become” because death stops all the possibilities of Dasein. With this, “me-meontology” happens in Dasein’s death because death stops Dasein’s “inauthenticity.” “Inauthenticity” is a manifestation of “meontology.” Death stops the “meontology” which is Dasein’s “inauthenticity.” Dasein’s “authenticity” is not only because of death’s denial of “inauthenticity.” Dasein’s “authenticity” does not follow the “me-meontology” through death. Dasein becomes “authentic” in death because it achieves its “wholeness,” and “fullness” as it is no longer open for possibilities.
Through death, “Dasein” (is) a “Being-no-longer-in-the-World.” “It” (is) “no-longer-in-the-world” and “it” does not go to a “world” beyond because “world” beyond this world is impossible. Rather, “it” (goes) to the “We-Time” where “Nothing” (is). The “We-Time” (is) neither an essense nor existence. It (is) “Nothing.” It (is) beyond “understanding” and beyond words to describe. There (is) only a “standing in.”As “Being-no-longer-in-the-World,” “Dasein” (becomes) part of the “We.” From “We” to “I” to “we” to “We.”
[1]. Michael Inwood, A Heidegger Dictionary, (Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, Inc., 1999) 246. Hereafter, A Heidegger Dictionary.
[2] A Heidegger Dictionary, 35
[3] A Heidegger Dictionary, 36.
[4] Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, (Tubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1953) 40. Hereafter, Being and Time.
[5] Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, translated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson, (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Incorporated, 1962), 294. Hereafter, B&T.
[6] B&T, 294.
[7] Michael Inwood, Heidegger: A Very Short Introduction, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997) 22. Hereafter, Heidegger: A Very Short Introduction.
[8] Being and Time, 40.
[9] A Heidegger Dictionary, 60
[10] Being and Time, 40.
[11] Being and Time, 40.
[12] Charles Guignon, The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993) 42. Hereafter, The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger.
[13] Domingo Rafael Alimajen, Jr., “Nosology” as “Meta-Ontology” (Unpublished Text), 4.
[14] A Heidegger Dictionary, 26.
[15] A Heidegger Dictionary, 50.
[16] A Heidegger Dictionary, 246.
[17] A Heidegger Dictionary, 246.
[18] A Heidegger Dictionary, 246.
[19] Heidegger: A Very Short Introduction, 37.
[20] Heidegger: A Very Short Introduction, 31.
[21] Heidegger: A Very Short Introduction, 40.
[22] Heidegger: A Very Short Introduction, 40.
[23] Being and Time, 112.
[24] A Heidegger Dictionary, 35.
[25] A Heidegger Dictionary, 35
[26] A Heidegger Dictionary, 36.
[27] A Heidegger Dictionary, 36.
[28] Being and Time, 53.
[29] Being and Time, 53.
[30] Being and Time, 114.
[31] Being and Time, 114.
[32] Being and Time, 114.
[33] Being and Time, 115.
[34] A Heidegger Dictionary, 115.
[35] Domingo Rafael Alimajen, Jr., “Nosology” as “Me-meontology” (Unpublished Text), 2. Hereafter, Me-meontology.
[36] Me-meontology, 3.
[37] Me-meontology, 3.
[38] B&T, 294.
[39] B&T, 294.
[40] B&T, 280.
[41] Domingo Rafael Alimajen Jr, We, “Nosology” of Communion, (Iloilo, Philippines: St. Vincent Ferrer Seminary Publications, 2009) 39. Hereafter, We, “Nosology” of Communion.
[42] Being and Time, 40.
[43] Me-meontology, 6.
[44] Heidegger: A Very Short Introduction, 31.
[45] We, “Nosology” of Communion, 66.
[46] We, “Nosology” of Communion, 48.
[47] We, “Nosology” of Communion, 78.
[48] Being and Time, 40.