The Problem of Death

Entry into the Second Division

Overview: The need for Division Two

Heidegger has characterized the first division as "preparatory". The term
'preparatory' refers first of all to the general scope of the treatise
(which sought to uncover the Being of Human Being as a means of access to
the meaning of Being as such).

But specifically, the term refers here to an essential incompleteness in the
first division.

The first division is incomplete with respect to:

(1) The mode of Dasein's Being

We have dealt mostly with Dasein in its inauthentic mode i.e., in its being
in the world of its 'concern' and in its being with others. The 1st division
has investigated these structures and the various ways in which Dasein can
'lose itself' in them.

It has not, however, fully investigated the way in which Dasein can 'win
itself.' The first division has not given us an adequate grasp of Dasein's
authenticity.

(2) The formal structure of interpretation

We are involved in an interpretation of Dasein. As such, the articulation in
the text must exhibit that which underlies any interpretation viz. the
structures of the understanding (i.e., the fore-structure).

The specific structure which the first division has not 'fulfilled' is the
fore-having. Now, fore-having deals with totality or wholeness and it is
this aspect of Dasein that has yet to be achieved.

The structure of existence has been seen to be essentially ahead-of-itself
and as such Dasein, as long as it exists, is essentially 'incomplete.' The
first division has not given us a grasp of Dasein as a whole.

(3) The primordiality of the interpretation

The care structure itself needs a more primordial grounding. The structural
moments which underlie the unitary phenomenon of Being-in-the-world have
been exhibited, but the need to exhibit their unity (i.e., the unity of the
Care Structure) has yet to be achieved in an adequate manner.

Once we have grasped Dasein as a whole and once we have exhibited Dasein's
authenticity, then we will be able to re-enter the existential structures of
Care with the intent of uncovering the ground for their unity: such a ground
will manifest itself as Time.

It is temporality that forms the ontological meaning of the Being of Dasein
and it does so by exhibiting a manifold unity which 'runs through' the
various structural 'moments' of existentiality, facticity and falling.

ADD GRAPH

The unifying role of temporality can be anticipated by speaking of time as
the unity of a future which "makes present" in the process of having been.
Thus,

GRAPH

this is how the Being of Dasein is 'connected' to temporality, how 'Being
and Time' are thought together.

Section 45 (Methodological)

We spoke of the need for the interpretation to conform to the
fore-structures of the understanding. We must be specific about this: the
fore-having deals with the notion of totality or whole, the fore-sight with
the particular or specific task or entity that is before us within the
totality and the fore-conception which is the conceptualization of that
specific entity within the totality.

In the interpretation of Dasein we must have:
(i) Fore-having: Dasein as a whole
(ii) Fore-sight: Dasein itself
(iii) Fore-conception: Temporality

Now, Heidegger says (232/275), if we can get an adequate grasp of the
fore-having and the fore-sight then we will gain simultaneously a 'sketch'
of the fore-conception.

The question then becomes: 'What will the analysis need to accomplish with
respect to the structures of the fore-having and the fore-sight?'

In the fore-having, we will need to grasp Dasein as a whole (II1)

In the fore-sight, we will need to grasp Dasein in its authentic mode (II2).

Only after this task has been carried out can we gain access to the
fore-conception of time as the meaning of the Being of Dasein (II3).

And only as such can the analysis of Dasein claim completeness, only then
will the Dasein Analytic be complete.

First task: the problem of grasping Dasein as a whole (II1).

Section 46 (mostly negative)

The problem of gaining access to Dasein as a whole lies in the very
structure of Dasein's Existenz -- especially in the existential moment of
the 'ahead-of-itself: the essence of this structure is possibility ('Dasein
is permeated with possibility') and as such Dasein is 'out-standing' (stands
outside of itself) as long as it is -- Dasein is essentially incomplete as
long as it is living.

In consequence of this, it appears that Dasein cannot be grasped as a whole
within its life -- yet upon its death, it does not reach a whole either but
simply 'is' no longer (236/280).

The negative outcome of section 46 indicates that the problem of the
'wholeness' of Dasein is to be located in the problem of 'life and death' --
but the solution to this problem is still lacking.

Section 47

Heidegger takes up the direction of the problem by investigating the sense
of dying. He says that one does not 'experience' death in the sense of
'undergoing the process' -- for in death one is simultaneously no longer in
Da-sein. And while one may witness another's death -- the dying of others is
not something we can experience in a genuine sense -- we, are at best,
simply there alongside them.

So while death is 'objectively' there to be seen in the world, the
phenomenon of death cannot be represented by others -- in the sense that
their death can represent or take the place of my death.

Dasein has the character of mineness and the very possibility of
'representing' another's death is an impossibility -- we must begin to see
death as a possibility that is mine.

And with this Heidegger moves towards the analysis of death as an
existential phenomenon (rather than, say, a sociological or physiological
phenomenon).

Section 48

Heidegger begins the existential interpretation of death by attempting to
understand the sense of the 'incompleteness' of Dasein which section 46
spoke about viz., as long as Dasein lives it is outstanding and not-yet
complete (whole).

What is the existential character of this 'not-yet' which belongs to Dasein
and which seems to prevent Dasein from being-a-whole? Heidegger presents a
sequence of notions of the 'not-yet, a sequence that is guided by the
phenomenal contexts which present themselves.

The Not-Yet

(1) Debts

The example is one of the 'lack of togetherness' between a debt and its
payment -- the debt is still 'outstanding' until the pieces of money get
'added on' and the debt is 'filled in.' At this point the transaction is
'complete.'

Heidegger sees in this example the character of ready-to-hand (between money
and loans, etc.) and with this the inappropriate sense of not-yet with
respect to Dasein (which does not have the character of readiness-to-hand).

Dasein's life is not a 'debt' which must be 'paid' at some particular time
and with some particular 'sum.'

(2) The Moon

When the moon is not-yet perceptible as a whole we can nevertheless speak of
it as being capable of being a whole and we can see it become one (i.e., a
'full' moon). The 'not-yet' here refers to a kind of perceptibility of
something present-at-hand.

(3) A Ripened Fruit

There is a reference here to Aristotle's notion of potentiality: The essence
of something always already contains the direction towards its 'end'.

The fruit becomes that which (as unripe) it was 'not-yet' -- and not through
some external agent but of its own 'cause' i.e., the ripening (the
'not-yet') belongs to the very Being of the fruit. Here, Heidegger sees an
analogy with Dasein's 'not-yet': for the 'not-yet' of Dasein's Being belongs
to the very Being of Dasein. (Dasein's 'ripening' belongs to Dasein's
Being.)

But here the analogy breaks -- for although in Aristotle the ripening of the
fruit is a kind of 'fulfilling' -- the extreme 'not-yet' of Dasein i.e., its
death, is not a fulfilling. Nevertheless, this example indicates that the
'not-yet', in some sense, belongs to Dasein. But what then is the meaning of
this 'end' of Dasein?

The sense of Ending

Just as the 'not-yet' belongs to Dasein inasmuch as Dasein is its 'not-yet'
(in the active sense of comportment), so too, Dasein's relation to its 'end'
is not one of being 'at' an end, but rather Being-towards-an-end.

There is an existential relation between Dasein and its End which Heidegger
will characterize as Being-towards-Death.

Section 50

We have now an indication of the direction that Heidegger is going to take
with respect to the problem of Death and the wholeness of Dasein: the
problem of Death has been bound up with the existential structure of
Dasein's Being -- if this structure can be fully worked out, then it will
provide the whole of Dasein insofar as the initial charge of
'incompleteness' with respect to death will have been overcome. For if Death
is a peculiar possibility of Dasein's Being, then it is not something
'outside' of Dasein.

With this in mind, Heidegger gives us a formal, preliminary existential
ontological sketch of Death (through Care). Death, in terms of the Being of
Dasein, must be seen in terms of the structure of Care.

(1) In terms of existentiality (which has, as its primary feature,
possibility)

Death must be seen as Dasein's uttermost 'not-yet.' Death 'stands before'
(Bevorstand) -- but not in the sense of a storm (presence-at-hand), nor the
re-modeling of a house (ready-to-hand) nor the arrival of a friend
(with-others)...

Rather -- Death is something which 'stands before' each Dasein as its own.

Death is the possibility of the absolute impossibility of Dasein. Dasein
'stands before' itself as this possibility. Death is Dasein's ownmost
(eigenste-eigen), non-relational (i.e., when Dasein stands before itself as
this possibility, all its relations to other Dasein become loosened) and
uttermost possibility.

And in such a possibility, the structure of the ahead-of-itself finds its
most primordial concretization in Being-towards-Death.

(2) In terms of Facticity

Death is not a peculiar possibility that Dasein has 'chosen,' nor does it
have the character of something Dasein can 'choose'...

Rather, Death is a possibility that Dasein has been thrown into.

And in anxiety in the face of death what one is anxious about is ones'
ownmost, non-relational self.

(3) Yet, in terms of Fallenness

Everyday Dasein tends to conceal this uttermost possibility of Death.

****

All three moments constitute the existential concept of Death (in a
preliminary manner). Heidegger begins to concretize these moments.

The analysis begins with the manner in which Dasein proximately and for the
most part relates to its death viz. in the mode of Fallenness.

Section 51

(Compare with Leo Tolstoy, The Death of Ivan Ilych)

Everyday Being-in-the-world is a fleeing in the face of Death. Heidegger's
descriptions here are quite clear.

Section 52

After the description of inauthentic fleeing in the face of death, Heidegger
begins the movement towards an authentic conception of Death.

In this moment Death must be seen as it 'shows itself from itself' and not
covered over as something which it is not.

Death reveals itself as

(1) Certain -- not in the sense of an empirical or logical certainty, but in
an existential signification: it is a truth of existence that Dasein dies.

(2)Indefinite -- this certainty of Death is indefinite with respect to its
'when.' This certainty and indefiniteness of Death -- which is Dasein's
ownmost, non-relational possibility -- is the existential ontological
meaning of Death.

(A meaning which is concealed in Dasein's fallenness, but which is
nevertheless disclosed from the phenomenon itself.)

Section 53

The task now is to see how one can gain an authentic grasp of this
existential conception of Death. The nature of the possibility (of Death)
must be appropriated.

We do not relate to death as an ontic possibility to be 'actualized' (and
thus transformed), we do not, in Heidegger's words, expect it -- rather, we
must see death as a possibility (the possibility of the impossibility of
existence) and relate to it in terms of its character as possibility.
(Heidegger calls this relation one of anticipation.)

We must grasp death in the structure of the possible.

Now, this opening up of the possible within one's life is the beginning of
an authentic existence.

Reflection on what is means not-to-be mirrors back a reflection on what it
means 'to-be' -- and this in terms of possibility [cf. 263/307 "Anticipation
turns out to be the possibility of understanding one's ownmost (eigensten)
and uttermost potentiality for Being -- that is to say, the possibility of
authentic existence (eigentlicher Existenz)."]

Death is disclosive inasmuch as it brings Dasein back towards its ownmost
self.

The characteristics which belong to this disclosure:

(1) Death is Dasein's ownmost possibility.

(2) Death is non-relational. Death individualizes Dasein. Dasein must be
forced to 'take over' its ownmost Being.

(3) Death is not to be outstripped (surpassed): it is Dasein's uttermost
possibility and must be recognized as such. In doing so Dasein has 'freed'
itself for its death and for its own possibilities.

(4) Death is certain.

(5) Death indefinite.

****

Transition:

In the mood of Angst, anticipation in the face of Dasein radically
individualizes Dasein through the characteristics of its ownmost,
non-relational, not to be outstripped, certain and indefinite relation to
the possibility of its own impossibility...

In the freeing of oneself for the possibility of one's own Death, Dasein has
released itself form the illusions (the concealment) of 'the they' and opens
itself for the possibility of taking hold of itself from itself. Such is the
ontological possibility of authenticity. (It now remains to see how such an
authenticity occurs: II2)

                             Return to HomePage

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright: Robert Cavalier
Department of Philosophy / Carnegie Mellon University