 |
 |
>--As "Being-in-the-world," in fact (the pretext for >"self-within-society"?)--Candice the concept of being-in-the-world, for Heidegger just merely means for the being to live (and there for "the being" here and now, the existing before the non existing, which is always in front of us - till the point of the "being for one's death" -. The being-in-the-world- is existence itself, the imamnence, but I would not risk to say that that meant at all for nazi Heidegger the being-in-the- society. These beings struggle towards one think: the understanding one one's death mhich makes life meaningful. Of other depht is Kierkegaard's idea of existence, or Sartre 's distinction of the being as being devided (the being in and for itself, whih brings to Sartre's philosophy of the being, encompassing as it does human emotions and compassion). As Heidegger, Sartre too sees Being as a fact. But for Sartre, existence is another matter: set between the Being-in- itself of the transphenomenal realm which just is, and relates to us as the meaningless being - and the transcendent being-for-itself characterized by consciousness and freedom. The being that matters to us and that gives meaning to our existence. Erminia