Scheidell 1 Dr.

Sarah Borden 3 May 2010 Introduction Does Martin Heideggers concept of authenticity provide any ethical content, or can one e oth authentic and vicious! "e can as# the $uestion another %ay& in %hat %ays, if any, does authenticity alter Daseins everyday 'ode of Being! "e %ill ans%er this $uestion y analy(ing t%o authentic 'odes of Being and tracing the' ac# to their everyday correlates. )his tracing %ill ans%er our $uestion directly y e*plicating the ho% authenticity 'odifies the everyday 'odes of Being.1 )his e*plication %ill dra% out ho% authentic Being-in-the-world in fact places an ethical demand upon itself insofar as resoluteness pushes Dasein into solicitous Being-with.2 )his essay %ill develop its thesis as an e*pansion upon Heideggers clai' that resoluteness pushes Dasein into solicitous Being+%ith. By sche'ati(ing this ,push- as a self+ induced ethical de'and, %e can see the ethical content contained in Heideggers authenticity in resoluteness. .esoluteness is a #ind of disclosedness.3 /ccordingly, this ethical content co'es pri'arily fro' %hat is disclosed in resolute 'odes of Being. But %hat is this content! 0s it a list of rules, or a list of values that Dasein should value in order to e a ,good- Dasein! "ary of these e*tre'es he tries to steer et%een the' saying, ,Daseins resoluteness to%ards itself is %hat first 'a#es it possi le to let Others who are with it be in their ownmost potentiality-forbeing, and to co+disclose that potentiality in that solicitude %hich leaps forth and li erates.-1 Heidegger gives us a description of a specific comportment that ehaves in certain %ays to%ards 2thers. 3ote that he does not say that Dasein ought to let 2thers e in order to e an authentic self. )his letting e is not a 'eans to authenticity. .ather, letting e is a 'ar#ing characteristic of
1 2

245 Note& all citations fro' Being and Time %ill hereafter e indicated y paginations in the 5th 6er'an edition. 247 3 See translators footnote on page 313 in the Mac$uarrie8.o inson translation. 1 Ibid. 90talics added:

Scheidell 2 authenticity. /lthough this does not give us an ethic in the sense of an ,ought- clai', unpac#ing this clai' %ill give us a description of the ethos of authenticity;letting eings e. )he 'a<ority of this paper %ill e*plicate t%o co'ponents of letting e& co-disclosure and leaping ahead. By 'eans of these 'odes of Being, resoluteness pushes Dasein into solicitous Being-with. 0n order to properly understand this ethos, %e 'ust first co''ent on ho% Heidegger thin#s a out ethics. =irst, %e %ill dra% fro' his ,>etter on Hu'anis'- and ,2n the ?ssence of )ruth- to interpret his larger conception of ethos, %hich %e %ill characteri(e as a responsi e ethos 9@1:. "e %ill then analy(e resoluteness push y seeing the e erydayness 9@2: fro' %hich it pushes Dasein. )hereafter, %e %ill sho% that resoluteness pushes Dasein fro' idle tal! 9@3: to%ard co-disclosure 9@1: and fro' leaping in 9@A: to leaping ahead 9@B:. )o conclude, %e %ill revisit these the'es to sho% ho% resoluteness pushes Dasein to%ard solicitous Being-with 9@5:. @1& "thics as #esponse Heideggers ,>etter on Hu'anis'- is a'ong the rare instances %hen he e*plicitly says anything on ethics. Before giving any definition of ethics, he %arns against the t%o co''on sense understandings of ethics;a rule+ ased or value+ ased pere'ptory directive. He interprets the desire for a directive as a cop out. Heidegger refuses to %rite an ethic that %ill dis urden the %eight of the ethical decision itself.
Soon after Being and Time a young friend as#ed 'e, C"hen are you going to %rite an ethics! "here the essence of 'an is thought so essentially, i.e. solely fro' the $uestion concerning the truth of Being, ut still without ele ating man to the center of beings, a longing necessarily a%a#ens for a pere'ptory directive and for rules that say ho% 'an, e*perienced fro' the e#+sistence to%ard Being, ought to live in a fitting 'anner. A

"e italici(ed the elevation clause to e'phasi(e Heideggers understanding of the relations et%een other entities and Dasein. Heidegger resists understanding ethics in ter's of hu'anity at the hel' in do'ination over the entities around it. 0n this strain of thought, he sees
A

Basic $ritings ,>etter on Hu'anis'- 2AA 90talics added:

Scheidell 3 pro le's %ith the t%o do'inant %ays of thin#ing a out ethics. 2n one hand, %e have universal rules to e applied in particular instances. 2n the other hand, %e have value+ ased ethics, %hich ta#es hu'an desires and values as its guide. =or Heidegger, these oth suffer the sa'e pro le' of assu'ing hu'an#ind too highly a'ong eings. "ith rule+ ased ethics, %ho decides the rules! /nd %hy these rules rather than others! Heidegger sees this as elevating Dasein to the level of 'aster over entities, rather than seeing and responding to situations. Moreover, he fears that rule+ ased ethics, y arguing for rules prior to the situations, li'its Daseins a ility to see entities apart fro' the assu'ptions ehind the universal rules. 0n short, he disagrees %ith a 'ethod of ethical thought that decides the %orth or value of entities prior to the situation. )he pro le' re'ains if one turns to value+ ased ethics. Here, Heidegger is thin#ing of the syste's that propose that entities are valua le only insofar as persons value the'. /gain, Dasein i'poses values, along %ith their i'plicit understandings of entities, upon those entities involved. 0n short, oth %ays of ethics presu'e too 'uch, not only of Dasein, ut also of surrounding entities. /n ethics on Heideggers ter's is neither a practical nor theoretical do'inion over entities, ut a ,recollection of Being and nothing else.-B "hat he 'eans y this is that ethical thin#ing is a 'ode of thought that first and fore'ost considers the Being of entities. 0t is an ethic, if any, that responds to eings. 2ne cannot do this %hen one is guided first y either a solute, i.e. ar itrary, rules or ones su <ective values. =or oth i'pose a pre+conceived Being upon entities, rather than acting in response. 9"e 'ust note that the a ove e*position of Heideggers criti$ue of prior ethics serves to set up his 'odel of ethics as response. )o evaluate his criti$ue lies outside the range of this paper.: /ccordingly, our thesis;that resoluteness provides ethical content via pushing Dasein into solicitous Being+%ith;ta#es on a distinctly responsive character y characteri(ing this as
B

Ibid.% 2A4

Scheidell 1 letting eings e. Much still re'ains to e done. "e can still as# a out the pushing effected y resoluteness. =irst, a%ay fro' %hat does it push! Secondly, y %hat 'eans does it push! "ith this larger understanding of ,ethics- in place, %e can 'ove on to clarify our thesis y ans%ering these $uestions. /ddressing the first $uestion, Heidegger %rites, ,C.esoluteness signifies letting oneself e su''oned out of ones lostness in the Cthey.-5 Here, he gives a concise definition of resoluteness %hile ans%ering our first $uestion noted a ove. .esoluteness dra%s one out of everyday Being+%ith+one+another. Moreover, it is a willing eing dra%nD a decision to be drawn constitutes resoluteness. 0n order to understand resoluteness push to%ard authenticity, %e 'ust first understand the everydayness fro' %hich it dra%s Dasein. @2& " eryday Being-with-one-another .esoluteness dra%s Dasein fro' its everyday Being+%ith+one+another, %hich displaces and covers over the 'ore funda'ental relationship+of+Being et%een Daseins. ,Being %ith 2thers elongs to the Being of Dasein, %hich is an issue for Dasein in its very Being. )hus as Being+%ith, Dasein Cis essentially for the sa#e of 2thers.-7 Here, Heidegger clai's that this funda'ental relation is essential to Dasein. )hat is to say, even if one ta#es an indifference to%ards 2thers or ,gets y- %ithout the', Dasein is there ,%ith- insofar as Dasein is ,there- at all. But ho% can this idea e 'aintained, %hen in daily life, %e see petty <ealousy and overt arrogance dividing this allegedly pri'ordial relationship+of+Being! /n i'portant $ualification 'ust e 'ade here. )his relationship is not yet a factual relationship et%een personsD rather, it is an e*istentiale of Being+in+the+%orld. )hat is to say, Being+there is already Being+%ith, ut the factual relationship, for e*a'ple, et%een Eones and S'ith 'ust nonetheless e uncovered and

5 7

244 123

Scheidell A e*plicitly disclosed. .elationship+of+Being is thus the funda'ental constituent of Dasein that per'its factual relationships. But %hat does Dasein have in the place of factual, authentic relationships! ,Dasein 'aintains itself pro*i'ally and for the 'ost part in the deficient 'odes of solicitude, F%hichGH 'ay easily 'islead ontological 0nterpretationH as the 'ere Being+present+at+hand of several su <ects.-4 "hat Heidegger indicates here is a passive, unintentional indifference. )hin# a out %hat happens relationally %hen, for e*a'ple, %e uy Iursives al u' &appy &ollow. "hat is our relation to the storeo%ner! )o the artist %ho designed the al u' cover! )o the individual 'usicians the'selves %ho perfor' on the record! )o the 9often even 'ore distanced: 'usicians %ho co'posed the songs! Ian %e even identify Iursives lead vocalist! 3ote %hat happened in as#ing these $uestions. "e could only thin# of these individual Daseins as the storeo%ner, or as these 'usicians, and so on. "e only relate to these 2thers as anony'ous persons %ho acted in such a %ay as to result in 'y possessing of an al u'. 0n short, %e unintentionally interpret 2thers as su <ects present+at+hand instead of 2thers %ith %ho' %e share a 'ore asic relationship as an e*istentiale of Dasein. Iontrast this %ith a counter e*a'ple of an 0nterpretation guided y having the relationship at the fore. 0'agine one has a friend %ho releases an al u' under the and na'e, /le*ander. "hen one listens to his al u' one recalls his face, the 'utual friends, hi' leading %orship at a "ednesday night church service. Here, the relationship is understood prior to the ID that is ready+to+hand. 2ne therefore 0nterprets hi', not as a node in this referential net%or# of the present+at+hand )hing. .ather, one 0nterprets hi' as a Dasein %ho uses his 'usic as a 'ediu' to e*press his interests in Ihrist+focused social <ustice.

121

Scheidell B Here, resoluteness revives a vie% of Daseins 'ore asic relationship+of+Being. /le*anders resoluteness on social concerns reveals hi' and his interests, not in ter's of a ,so'eone- %ho participated in creating the 'usic to %hich 0 no% listen. .ather, one 0nterprets hi' in ter's of his self-chosen possi ility of 'usician %ho advocates social <ustice issues. "e should especially pay attention to %hat has een italici(ed. He is 0nterpreted according to those ter's y %hich he %ants to e #no%n. )his stands in star# contrast to #no%ing the 2ther as a reference of the present+at+hand )hing, e.g. ID. Ionsider in each case %ho assigns the the'e upon the 2ther. /s a node in the referential net%or#, %e su su'e the 2ther in ter's of the present+at+hand )hing %e have already 0nterpreted. 2n the other hand, in resoluteness, %e 0nterpret the 2ther, e.g. /le*ander, in ter's of his self+chosen possi ilities. )hat is to say, he ta#es on his 0nterpretation upon hi'self, %hich he then discloses to us.10 Iould it e the case that our pri'ordial relationship to things ready+to+hand o scures this e*istentiale! /ccording to our e*a'ples using Iursive and /le*ander, %e 'ust ans%er affir'atively. )hough this paper 'ay e speculating eyond e*plicit clai's of Heidegger, the follo%ing clai' flo%s necessarily fro' %hat has een in the last fe% paragraphs. $hen Others are disclosed in terms of the ready-to-hand%'' we are cut off from the persons themsel es% but (see) them only insofar as they are referred to as% e.g. the buyer% seller% or owner of this ob*ect. "e find these references to and significations of 2thers in the everyday o <ects of our environ'ent. "e 'ore readily 0nterpret 2thers in ter's of this referential net%or#. )herefore, %e generally and for the 'ost part gloss over the funda'ental relationship to 2thers of Being+ there+%ith 9+itdasein:. Here, %e 'ust e careful not to ,place la'e- in the %rong place. )he disconnect does not rest %ith the ready+to+hand )hings per se. )he locus of the disconnect rests

10 11

)his point %ill e revisited and e*panded in our @1. 120

Scheidell 5 solely on ho% %e co'e to the %orld around us. )hat is to say, it rests %ith our co'port'ent to%ards %hat is efore us. )his 'o'ent is %here resoluteness 'a#es its critical 'ove. 0n resoluteness, Dasein pulls itself a%ay fro' this 'erely referential disclosure, i.e. 2thers as nodes in a net%or#. )hus, %e co'e to repeat an earlier $uestion. By what means does resoluteness push Dasein from its e eryday mode of disclosedness, "hat necessary constituents of resoluteness push Dasein to re+ 0nterpret 2thers! >et us revisit our central citation. ,Daseins resoluteness to%ards itself is %hat first 'a#es it possi le to let 2thers %ho are %ith it C e in their o%n'ost potentiality+for+ eing, and to co-disclose that potentiality in that solicitude %hich leaps forth and li erates.-12 =ocusing no% on co+disclosure, %e can see that resoluteness does not satisfy itself %ith i'posing the referential net%or# upon 2thers. 0nstead, it responds and listens toH in order to understand the 2ther in ter's of her self+chosen possi ilities+for+Being. @3& Idle Tal! Eust as everyday Being+%ith covers over the 'ore funda'ental relationship+of+Being, idle tal# disguises a 'ore asic discourse. .esoluteness entails ethical content y unveiling this asic discourse and revealing an e*istentiale of Dasein accordingly. "hat is i'plicitly there, ut not e*plicitly rought to the fore! 0n J31, Heidegger %rites the follo%ing. ,0n discourse, Being+ %ith eco'es Ce*plicitly shared- that is to say, it is already, ut it is unshared as so'ething that has not een ta#en hold of and appropriated.-13 Here, he indicates t%o %ays of discourse;one that overloo#s the funda'ental Being+%ith and another that rings it to the fore. "e %ill characteri(e these e*tre'e possi ilities as idle tal! and co-disclosure, respectively.

12 13

247 90talics added: 1B2

Scheidell 7 "e can illustrate idle tal# y analy(ing the possi ility of going to college. 0s ,going to college- itself idle! 3o. )hat %ould e to 'isunderstand the function of idle tal#. 0t does not correlate to any set of possi ilities. 0dle tal# can disclose anything %hatsoever. "hat 'a#es ,going to college- idle tal# is the case of going to college, solely ecause that is e*pected of high school students no%. )his co''on #no%ledge co'es fro' no one, fro' no%here, and is accounta le to no authority other than itself. )he everyday Dasein in high school %ill go to college. "hy! Because co''on #no%ledge, i.e. idle tal#, tells Dasein to go to college. "hy does this distinction et%een idle tal# and co+disclosure 'atter! "e %ill sho% that resoluteness pushes Dasein to solicitous Being+%ith y dra%ing it out of the idle tal#. By dra%ing Dasein out, it 'oves to%ard co+disclosure, %hich ta#es hold of and appropriates the asic e*istentiale of Being+%ith. )o understand this 'ove'ent aright, %e 'ust sho% ho% idle tal# glosses over and conceals Being+%ith. /n i'portant $uestion arises here. 0f Dasein is discoursing, with whom does Dasein discourse! )his $uestion carries %eight, since the ans%er to this $uestion in fact underlies the distinction et%een idle tal# and co+disclosure. More specifically, the $uestion hinges upon ho% %e understand the 2ther. 0s ones interlocutor an inferior to %ho' one spea#s do%n, a superior fro' %ho' one see#s guidance, or an e$ual %ith %ho' one has conversation! )here is another possi ility;that of hearsay, gossip, and listening to ,co''on #no%ledge-, i.e. idle tal#. )hese and si'ilar 'odes of discourse reveal distinct variants of disclosure of Being+%ith. /re %e %ith the 2ther as an inferior, as a superior, as an e$ual, or as not present at all, as is the case %ith idle tal#! )hus, it 'atters i''ensely with whom one discourses. "e %ill focus our attention on the ,they- and its idle tal#. ,)hese 2thers Fi.e. the CtheyG, 'oreover, are not definite 2thers.-11 0n other %ords, idle tal# overloo#s Being+ %ith insofar as the ,interlocutor- is in this case anonymous. ,)he CtheyH is the Cnobody to
11

12B

Scheidell 4 %ho' every Dasein has already surrendered itself.-1A )his surrendering to Cno ody indicates idle tal#s 'ode of Being+%ith;a Being+%ith, %hich is covered over. 0dle tal# #eeps its origin anony'ous and, thus, cannot disclose 2thers as ,there.- .ather than disclosing 2thers as ,there,- idle tal# only discloses their easy ans%ers as ready+to+hand. Ho% does idle tal# cover up this pri'ordial e*istentiale;Being+%ith! )his covering up egins as does every discourse, y listening. Heidegger %rites, ,>istening toH1B is Daseins e*istential %ay of Being+open as Being+%ith for 2thers.-15 "hat Heidegger sho%s here is necessary for seeing the description of that Dasein that lets eing e. )he capacity to listen is funda'ental to an open co'port'ent of Dasein. 0n listening toH Dasein opens itself to e influenced y %hat is disclosed in the discourse. But as everyday Dasein, to %ho' does it listen! ,0s not Dasein, as thro%n Being+in+the+%orld, thro%n pro*i'ally into the pu licness of the Cthey! /nd %hat does this pu licness 'ean, other than the specific disclosedness of the Cthey!-17 0n the first $uestion here, Heidegger rhetorically re'inds us that Dasein is always in a social conte*t in %hich ones 'ost asic understandings are defined and given y that i''ediate conte*t. 2nes understanding egins %ith ideas learned fro' 2thers. But %hat is this understanding! "hat is disclosed in idle tal# that characteri(es it as idle tal# rather than authentic co+disclosure! "hat do ,they- disclose to Dasein, there y disguising itself! Heidegger ans%ers this $uestion in J3A %here he characteri(es idle tal# as a distinct disclosedness that closes off.14 But %hat is closed off y idle tal#! 0n short, idle tal# closes off Dasein fro' seeing its o%n thro%nness. Dasein fails to see its Being+in, since the ,they-, through idle tal#, is ,decisive for the asic %ay in %hich Dasein lets the %orld C'atter to it. )he Cthey
1A 1B

127 )he ellipses here do not indicate a shortening of the $uotation. Heidegger uses ,H- to leave a lan# space in %hich the reader 'ay interpose any possi le e*a'ple of an interlocutor. 15 1B3 17 1B5 14 1B4

Scheidell 10 prescri e ones state+of+'ind and deter'ines %hat and ho% one Csees.-20 Heidegger here is offering an insight that the ,they- disguise the'selves in idle tal# y perpetuating easy, ready+ 'ade ideas as ,co''on #no%ledge.- 0n Heideggers %ords, ,%hen Dasein 'aintains itself in idle tal#, it isH cut off fro' its pri'ary and pri'ordially genuine relationships+of+Being to%ards the %orld, to%ards Dasein+%ith, and to%ards its very Being+in.-21 0n short, y co'forting itself in these easy ans%ers, Dasein is dra%n fro' seeing its o%n'ost constitutive e*istentials. But ho% does idle tal# cut off Dasein fro' its %orld, Dasein+%ith, and Being+in! 0dle tal# distracts Dasein fro' its thro%nness y holding attention captive to %hat is said in gossip and passing the word along.22 0n so spreading, idle tal# ta#es on an authority as ,co''on #no%ledge,- there y discouraging further in$uiry.23 .esoluteness tas#, then, is to ring Being to%ards the %orld, Dasein+%ith, and Being+in to the forefront to e e*plicitly ta#en hold of. @1& .o-disclosure Ho% does resoluteness push Dasein fro' idle tal# into authentic co+disclosure %hen ,Dasein is constantly delivered over to this interpretedness, %hich controls and distri utes the possi ilities of everyday understanding and the state+of+'ind elonging to it!-21 "e noted earlier that the disclosure in idle tal# controls the asic possi ilities of Dasein. "hat then does it 'ean for resoluteness to 'ove fro' idle tal# to co+disclosure! .esoluteness does not co'pletely e*change its for'er concerns for ne% ones. .ather, resoluteness 'odifies Daseins co'port'ent to%ards the possi ilities disclosed in idle tal#. )o ela orate this 'odification anecdotally, %e can use possi ility of, for e*a'ple, going to college. Many go <ust ecause it is ,%hat one does- after high school. )his piece of idle tal# is e*changed for )rent Koutsou os introducing 'e to
20 21

150 Ibid. 22 1B7 23 1B4 21 1B5f

Scheidell 11 pheno'enologyD for Bruce Bensons reviving that interest y assigning readings in Husserl, Heidegger, >evinas, Derrida, and MarionD for Sarah Bordens guided readings through Husserl and Heidegger. 3ote that the original possi ility;going to college;is not discarded, ut in fact pursued. "hat changed is Daseins co'port'ent to%ard that possi ility. .ather than surrendering to thro%nness, Dasein surrenders by resolution to a specific circle of influences according to ones self+chosen ,for+the+sa#e+of-. 0n short, the anony'ous ,they- is e*changed for a definite circle of influence.2A )herefore, idle tal# eco'es authentic co+disclosure y %ay of resoluteness. Still the follo%ing $uestion arises& %hy is the inauthentic su stitute 'ore readily availa le! "hy is the su stitute 'ore everyday than the pri'ordial relationship+of+Being! )o this covering+over a nu' er of factors contri ute. =irst, the net%or# of references, %ith the )hing as its ne*us, is 'ore readily disclosed. Secondly, this average understanding gets ta#en up perpetuated y the ,they-. )hirdly, the co''on #no%ledge of the ,they- defines ones everyday Self, so that Dasein tends to forsa#e understanding 2thers as 'ore than nodes in the referential net%or#. =or it a sor s itself in the readily interpreted concerns and interests of the ,they-. >et us return to everyday high school Dasein to unpac# this eing+defined+ y+the+,they-. Dasein co'es into the local state university and is easily spotted as the everyday fresh'an. 0t %anders the ca'pus, thro%s =ris ees %ith friends in the $uad, gossips a out guys, tries la'e pic# up lines to flirt %ith girls, and is generally involved %ith anything ut college studies. "hy does everyday Dasein act thusly in college! Because this is ho% everyday Dasein acted in high school. )his is Heideggers ,)hey-+self. 0t does not live, ut gets lived y the ,they-. 2B "hen does everyday Dasein eco'e serious as a college student! So'eti'e et%een =all of

2A 2B

247 244

Scheidell 12 Sopho'ore year and the end of Eunior year, everyday Dasein reali(es the it cannot live forever on its parents dollar and needs to 'a#e so'ething of its life. )his is the first 'o'ent %hen Dasein discards the idle tal# of going to college and resolutely goes to college. Dasein calls ho'e, tal#s to friends, 'eets %ith professors, and pic#s an area of study that %ill guide it to%ards a career. Dasein does not <ust ta#e these pieces of discourse at face value and live y the'. .ather, Dasein %eighs these discourses against the classes that 'ost catch its attention. 0t ta#es Lhilosophy 101 %ith Dr. )al ot and finds these $uestions fascinating. 0t %eighs this fascination %ith the general consensus Dasein gets fro' friends and fa'ily;that Dasein, %hen eing itself in its o%n ele'ent, tends to engage in the 'ost funda'ental $uestions of e*istence. Dasein accordingly declares a Lhilosophy 'a<or and grasps, in Heideggers ter's, its o%n'ost+potentiality+for+Being+its+Self. >et us focus on the different discourses in the anecdote a ove. /s the ,)hey-+self, Dasein goes to college according to the authority of idle tal#s disclosedness. Mpon resol ing on studying philosophy, Dasein retains the asic possi ility of college studies, ut does so ased on a decision 'ade after a different discourse. Dasein dre% itself out fro' the anony'ous ,theyand instead listened to specific 2thers;the friends it 'ade during =resh'an raids, its parents, favored professors, and so on. But %hy does this 'aneuver entail any content in regard to ethics! 3otice that %hat changed, at otto', is Daseins 'ode of Being+%ith. .ather than holding the ,they- at a distance in idle tal#, Dasein sought the advice of specific individuals, there y e*plicitly appropriating Daseins 'ore funda'ental Being+%ith. /lso, note that Dasein cannot see# out specific individuals %ithout ta#ing into considerations their o%n interests, concerns, and possi ilities. 0n short, Dasein, via resoluteness, co'es to see 2thers in ter's of their self+chosen possi ilities.

Scheidell 13 )herefore, authentic co+disclosure, along %ith the discourse itself, discloses 2thers as specific concrete circu'spectful, concernful potentialities+for+Being+their+selves. "ith this disclosedness, solicitude co'es to the fore insofar as one ,sees- 2thers as ones %ith concerns, interests, and possi ilities of their o%n. Ho% Dasein sees the other distinguishes solicitude fro' concern. "e have ,concern-25 for )hings ready+to+hand, ut as 2thers are not o <ects ready+to+ hand or present+at+hand, %e relate to 2thers in solicitude.27 By 'a#ing this distinction, Heidegger accentuates the funda'ental difference in ho% %e relate to 2thers. )hey are not <ust ,)hings- that 'atter to us, ut persons %e #no% according to their self-chosen possibilities. Here %e co'e to e*actly %hat co+disclosure reveals that idle tal# glosses over. 0dle tal# #eeps 2thers at a distance. ,)hey- are only referenced as so'ething of concern. 2ur ID e*a'ple de'onstrates this point directly. )he 'usicians on &appy &ollow are ,o <ects of concern- insofar as %e only #no% the' as na'es that produced 'usic %e en<oy. )he and /le*ander, in contrast, %e #no% y his self+chosen, resolute interests in using 'usic to advocate <ustice issues. "e relate to /le*ander y e*plicit solicitude, %hile the 'e' ers of Iursive are only nodes in the referential net%or# ecause their al u' is an o <ect of concern. .eturning to our college anecdote, %e can see co+disclosures distinct 'ode of disclosedness. 0t discloses Koutsou os interest in using invest'ent strategies to oost ?thiopian econo'y y spreading local art. 0t discloses Bensons interest in 3iet(sche scholarship. )he e*a'ples go on. )he point to note is that, via co+disclosure, Dasein gains concrete, definite advice and guidance fro' concrete, definite 2thers %ith their o%n pursuits and pro<ects. 0n short, co+disclosure gives ac# %hat idle tal# cut off;clear a%areness of Daseins relationships+of+

25 27

See section si*, first paragraph for e*planation of Heideggers ,concern-. 121

Scheidell 11 Being to%ards the %orld, Dasein+%ith, and its very Being+in. Dasein gains these ac# in authentic resolute solicitude, upon %hich co+disclosure rests. "hat the preceding analysis gives us still floats in theory. 0t focuses on how we thin! of and conceptuali/e the 2ther. )his papers introduction pro'ised to say ho% authenticity 'anifests in ethical acts, not ethical thoughts. Ho% does resoluteness 'ove fro' ethical thought to ethical action! Heidegger %ould say that %e <ust posited a false dichoto'y et%een thought and act.24 "e have een dealing thus far %ith a ,practical #no%ledge- that is not ,atheoretical-30 in nature, ut one necessarily tied to action. )hat is to say, act influences practical interpretation and interpretation guides actD the t%o cannot e separated. Dasein cannot interpret one %ay and act another. )hat is ecause %e funda'entally interpret in accordance %ith ho% %e interact %ithH .31 0n short, %hen %e treat the 2ther as an o <ect of concern, %e cannot e at the sa'e ti'e relating to the 2ther in authentic, e*plicit solicitude. =or concern and solicitude are not ontical32 actions in their o%n right, ut states of Being for Dasein. )herefore, in co+disclosure, %hich 'a#es authentic solicitude e*plicit, %e have already 'oved fro' theoretical concepts to action. )he only re'aining issue is ho% solicitude 'anifests. @A& 0eaping In Solicitude 'anifests in t%o possi le e*tre'es.33 0t can leap in and can do'inate. /lternatively, it %ill leap ahead and can li erate.31 Superficially, the difference et%een the t%o is that the for'er is doing so'ething for an 2ther, %hereas the latter is doing so'ething with an

24 30

B5 B4 31 B5 32 By ,ontical- Heidegger 'eans specific, factual instances. /n ontical action, for e*a'ple, is this instance right here, right no%, of reading footnote 32. 33 Heidegger distinguishes positive and deficient 'odes of solicitude. )his essay focuses on the for'er. )he latter 'ode is that of indifference to%ard the 2ther. /ccordingly, Dasein cannot cease to e solicitous, ut only cover solicitude over, as %e have discussed a ove. 31 122

Scheidell 1A 2ther. 2ne 'ay %ell as#, ho% does doing so'ething for an 2ther do'inate! Ho% is doing so'ething for anything 'ore than freeing the 2ther to spend that ti'e and energy else%here! )he distinct 'odes of disclosedness, %hich guide solicitude, %ill address this $uestion. =irst, %e 'ust e*plicate the everyday solicitude in order to ring out the contrast et%een inauthentic and authentic solicitude. /lthough Heidegger cites a 'ediu' et%een the t%o e*tre'es as everyday solicitude,3A leaping in see's to e the 'ore co''on ,default- 'ode of solicitude. =or e*a'ple, i'agine seeing a young 'an in a %heelchair getting food in a school cafeteria. 2nes first instinct is to help y getting food for hi'. ,)his #ind of solicitude ta#es over for the 2therH. )he 2ther is thro%n out of his positionH. 0n such solicitude the 2ther can eco'e one %ho is do'inated and dependent.-3B Before unpac#ing this, %e 'ust note a point lost in translation. ,"inspringen- 9leaping in: 'ore specifically 'eans ,leaping into 9the place ofH:-."hat Heidegger rings to attention can thus e rephrased as follo%s. )he 2ther can lose the capacity for developing his Self insofar as everything is done for hi'. 0nstead, he is left to only live vicariously through the one %ho leaps in. He no longer lives in that 'o'ent, ut is lived, i.e. ,lived for.- "hen the 2ther is lived for, he eco'es dependent upon the Dasein that leaps in, there y not seeing his o%n capa ilities. / specific 'ode of disclosedness underlies this #ind of solicitude. 0t acts upon a tacit assu'ption of %hat the 2ther can or cannot do. )herefore, it is closed off fro' an opportunity for a disclosedness of their potentialities. 0s this to say that Dasein should ne er leap in! )his $uestion %ill e ans%ered after analy(ing leaping ahead.

@B& 0eaping 1head

3A 3B

Ibid. Ibid.

Scheidell 1B ,F>eaping aheadG pertains essentially to authentic care;that is, to the e*istence of the 2ther, not to a C%hat %ith %hich FDaseinG is concerned.-35 ,Ioncerned- here does not indicate the co''on ?nglish 'eaning as in ,0' concerned for you.- .ather, Heidegger 'eans concern only in the sense that this or that )hing 'atters to 'e. =or e*a'ple, an anthology containing early %ritings of Kier#egaard 'atters to those %ith an interest in ?*istential philosophy, %hereas a te*t of physiogno'y does not. )he Kier#egaard anthology is an ,o <ect of concern- according to Heideggers ter'inology. Ioncern relates Dasein to )hings, %hereas solicitude denoted Daseins relation to 2thers. Here %e find the #ey constituent of the distinction et%een authentic and inauthentic solicitude;%hat Dasein sees %hen it sees the 2ther. Does Dasein see a ,%hatof concern or another circu'spectful, concernful Being+in+the+%orld! Daseins ,solicitude is guided y considerateness F#2c!sichtG and forbearance FNachsichtG.-37 Heidegger here is using %ordplay to ring out and indicate that oth guides for solicitude are a #ind of sight 9sicht:. But %hat e*actly does authentic solicitude see that is covered over y everyday leaping in! >eaping in is guided y seeing a ,%hat- of concern. 0t ,'atters to,- i.e. ,concerns- Dasein that it sees an 2ther in a %heelchair. 0t has not yet necessarily related to hi' in a %ay that e*plicitly shares Being+%ith. >eaping ahead, rather, sees first and fore'ost the potentialities of the 2ther. "e can e*plicate #2c!sicht %ith another e*a'ple. 0'agine ones sister suffers paralysis after a horse ac# riding accident. )hirteen years later, she has gained ac# enough 'o ility to 'anage her %ay around her ho'e, drive, and %or# in 'edical ioethics at the Mniversity of Mia'i under Kenneth 6ood'an. )he e3plicit% authentic sharing of Being-with one has %ith her discloses her, not as a ,%hat- that needs to e leapt in for, ut as a Dasein %ith pro<ects, interests, and $uestions of her o%n pursuits. /ccordingly, Dasein sees a Dasein and acts upon

35 37

Ibid. 123

Scheidell 15 that disclosedness. 0n light of this, one 'ay authentically leap in. 3otice, ho%ever, that authentic leaping in is predicated upon seeing the 2ther in ter's of her o%n potentialities. 2ne cannot #no% %hen she %ants and needs help until one sees, rather than assumes, %hat she can or cannot do for herself. By %or#ing %ith and alongside her, she is not dependent upon the leaping Dasein. "ithout eing dependent, her o%n potentialities co'e to the forefront. ,F>eaping aheadG helps the 2ther to eco'e transparent to FherGself in FherG care and to eco'e free for it.-34 0n other %ords, Heidegger 'eans that y leaping ahead %ith each other, t%o particular Daseins co+ disclose each others o%n'ost potentialities+for+Being %ithin and y 'eans of their e*plicitly shared relationship+of+Being. "e as#ed earlier %hether or not authentic, resolute Dasein ever leaps in. )his is an i'portant $uestion insofar as its ans%er $ualifies the relation et%een authenticity and ethics. "e 'ust note that authenticity and inauthenticity cannot e e$uated %ith the categories of ethical and unethical. )he ontical act of getting food for the 2ther in the cafeteria 'ay %ell e acting inauthentically, ut certainly not viciously. Ho%ever, a friend of this 2ther 'ay #no% hi' %ell enough to see that he is tired, had a long day, etc. His friend 'ay accordingly get food, i.e. leap in, <ust in this instance, there y not 'a#ing hi' dependent upon that leaping in. 0n contrast, one 'ay e inauthentic, ut the #indest, 'ost generous Dasein.10 =or this Dasein 'ay e so ecause ,they- taught it to act the ,right- %ay. 0n short, one can e ,virtuous-11 %hile inauthentic. But one cannot e authentic and vicious. =or authenticity rests upon the disclosure of the 2ther in ter's of possi ilities and solicitude, not as a ,%hat- of concern. /s soon as Dasein acts viciously, for %hatever reason, it has disclosed the 2ther as a ,%hat- of concern, a 'eans to
34 10

122 2ur e*a'ples of authenticity have all used persons %ho #ne% each other in ter's of so'e relationship. "e have not argued that such relationship is necessary for authenticity. "e leave the follo%ing $uestion to e addressed in a later %or#& can one e authentic in a nation or cultural group! 11 "e put ,virtuous- in $uotes to indicate that %e 'ean ontically virtuous. )hat is to say, one 'ay inauthentically do all the actions dee'ed as virtuous.

Scheidell 17 an end. )herefore, the ethical does not descri e authenticity per se. .ather, it indicates the 'ode of Daseins Being that holds an open co'port'ent that flourishes in letting eings e.12 )his posture itself is not the ethical, ut its disclosedness leads it to e*hi it a ehavior that lets eings e, i.e. ehaves ethically. @5& 4olicitous Being-with 2ur analysis thus far, in piece'eal, unpac#s ho% authenticity provides responsive ethical content. "e 'ust accordingly ring the pieces ac# together. /uthenticity 'anifests in resoluteness. Dasein can neither e authentic nor resolute so long as it is lost in the pu licness of the ,they-. )his lostness has een characteri(ed y the everyday Being+%ith that idle tal# perpetuates and preserves. )he ,they- dictate Daseins 'ost asic understanding via idle tal#. 0dle tal# dictates, further'ore, the superficial 'ode of everyday Being+%ith. 0n this 'ode, Dasein tacitly holds 2thers at a distance, y interpreting the' as nodes in its referential net%or# of concern. "hen this 'ost asic understanding and its easy ans%ers fail, Dasein can no longer rely on idle tal#. "ith these loud and do'inating noises stripped a%ay, it finally truly listens. 0t listens to those %ho have already disclosed their o%n interests, concerns, and so on. )hese disclosures %ere never a sent, ut only not heard for idle tal# dro%ned it out. )hus, %hen idle tal# falls a%ay, 2thers can e #no%n, recogni(ed, and interpreted in ter's of their o%n'ost self+ chosen possi ilities. /ccordingly, Dasein can no longer rely upon everyday disclosedness and its easy ans%ers. 0nstead, it 'ust ta#e up the urden of decision for itself. )husly, Dasein ta#es up resoluteness and 'a#es its o%n'ost decision. /n i'portant $ualification 'ust e 'ade here. )he 'ove fro' everyday to resolute Dasein never settles %ith any per'anence. ,Dasein is already in irresoluteness Fin everydaynessG,

12

Basic $ritings ,)he ?ssence of )ruth- 1278130!

Scheidell 14 and soon, perhaps, %ill e in it again.-13 Here, Heidegger rings his reader to face the fact that resoluteness is never a one+ti'e ontological shift. .esoluteness co'es and goes %ith each changing situation. Dasein never discards the ,they- and its idle tal#, ut at 'ost;in this or that situation;see#s to e resolute, co+discloses, to leap ahead, and to let 2thers e in ter's of their o%n'ost potentialities+for+Being. 3ote that resoluteness is not to e e$uated %ith the decision itself. .ather, it is the disclosedness necessary for 'a#ing the decision. ,.esoluteness F"ntschlosseneitG is a distinctive 'ode of Daseins disclosedness F"rrschlossenheitG.-11 Heidegger i'plies y this ety'ological connection %hat %e said earlier on sight and action. )he resolution itself cannot e divorced fro' its guiding disclosedness. /ny given 'ode of disclosedness involves an interpretation, and resoluteness al%ays acts according to that interpretation. "e resolve to leap in or leap ahead according to our interpretation of the 2ther, %hich egan %ith co+disclosure. .esoluteness, therefore, as authentic disclosedness, entails a responsive ethic that egins %ith an interpretation of the 2ther in ter's of their o%n'ost potentialities+for+Being+their+Selves. Dasein cannot authentically, i.e. resolutely, treat the 2ther as a ,%hat- of concern. =or it cannot e authentically resolute until it sees the 2ther as +itdasein.

13 11

244 245