Talk:Dasein

For further investigation into this topic see lecture series 'The Self Under Siege' by Rick Roderick

Hey there. I'm really not going to edit the article with this [though atm the article reads like nonsense] but if I am my Dasein, it always has its being as an issue and being can be interpreted through our Dasein, maybe it makes sense to say that Dasein is the process of knowing something about your world refracted through self understanding. E.g., I might see a bright light in the sky and believe it to be aliens but because I know that I've been reading a lot about aliens and am often kind of gullible I decide that it's just a plane. OK this isn't a particularly likely summary of the term but that's what this article needs - not a bizarre attempt my some nobody to refute a professor on a live technical point [as it does at the moment] - but linking the term to something that anyone can relate to. Like saying that 'Dasein' means my humanity, but not obviously incorrect. I think that the importance could be set to highest if that'd mean that such a definition would be forthcoming. People [wikipedia readers] really do care what they are according to existentialism even if it's not the most basic thing in philosophy. OK and if anyone wants to talk with me here about whether I'm on the wrong track [in defining Dasein as a more reliable way of interpreting the world] then please shout at me nicely. OK thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.48.46 (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need every instance of Dasein to be bolded in this article? --Anakolouthon 03:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've fixed that. But what does this article actually mean? -- Karada 00:27, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where does this meaning of ontic come from? Also shouldn't it be ontical?

Frogus - This article is incomprehensible to me. Distinctions need to be made between Heidegger's terms and commonly accepted terms, and some sections made - maybe one on the root of the word, one on Heidegger's exposition of it and one on its use in his book? Muchos gracias to anyone who knows this subject. Since when has 'ontological' meant 'doing'? Also, the author means 'ontical' by 'ontic' as far as I can tell. Either one is an extremely inaccessible word to use...

I have a problem with a couple sentences here. The first is, "Dasein is just the way we are." Dasein does not simply designate a mode of being or describe the behavior of a being, but rather names a certain kind of being in its entirety. Also, Heidegger explicitly states that Dasein is not synonymous with "human being," since humans are merely one particular instance of a kind of being that may manifest in any number of possible particularities.

The second sentence is, "Dasein is a way to get at an ontological understanding of time." It is more accurate to say that Dasein, as a being that is constituted by its temporality, draws upon time in order to illuminate and interpret the meaning of being. -- *wert-

What's the problem with "ontic?"

The use of "ontic" is entirely correct. Commonly, "ontic" is simply an adjective synonymous with "ontological"- there is nothing grammatically fishy about it. Its use here is more important than mere grammar however, since Heidegger draws a distinction between the "ontic," which designates beings in their everyday thisness and thatness, and the "ontological," which designates any relation to being as such and in a universal sense. The distinction between "ontic" and "ontological" mirrors his distinction between "being" and "the being of beings." -- *wert-

I find it a little troubling that this article links ontological with "does" and ontic with "is". First of all, a strict identification of either ontological or ontic with does or is seems to miss the point (Dasein acts, I act; Dasein is, I am). More than that, the identification seems counterintuitive -- everything I do is ontological, except in so far as I "am" Dasein. It would have been easier just to delete the words, but I am curious about the rationale for that identification... Ig0774

The Jean Macquarrie & Edward Robinson translation of Being and Time uses "ontical," not ontic. They are semantically synonymous, but it would be more appropriate, given the preference for the former in the text, to use "ontical."

The Stambaugh translation tends to favor "ontic". I think this is a matter of indifference. Ig0774

mistakes

Dasein is not synonymous with existence. It is specifically "an entity for which, in its Being, that Being is an issue." It is, of course, not an entity in any sense of presence-to-hand. It is also "...an entity which in each case I myself am." This connotes two important aspects of Dasein. First, the simple fact that you and I are Dasein. Second, that what it "is" is wrapped up in its Being (I myself 'am'), Being here correctly interpreted as emphatically a verb, reasonably synonymous with 'existing.' In other words Dasein only 'is' in terms of its Being (existing), which is always some particular mode of Being. That is, Dasein doesn't just exist, it always exists in such and such a way. It is arguable whether Dasein can be understood as a 'thing' at all, given its distinction as immanently unique from all other entities (excepting other Dasein), and in its utter inseperability from Being. Heidegger does not use the term 'primal,' he uses the term primordial. They are significantly different. Dasein in its 'everydayness,' the effect of its being 'thrown' into the world, is, in fact, inauthentic. It is 'fallen' Dasein. eotvos

The last two points are very good points (especially the everydayness part...). On the other hand, Dasein is synonymous with existence insofar as the sentence which claims this it is directed towards the meaning of the German word Dasein and not the Heidegger's particular meaning. The qualification applies to both terms. I find it fairly hard to understand how Dasein can be a meaningful concept without understanding the play that is going on here (like that between "ek-sistence" and "existence" in "A Letter on Humanism"). To understand Dasein as a thing (does the article ever claim this?) is to commit the same kind of mistake you point out. Ig0774

If anything could be synonymous with existence it would be Being (but of course it isn't, Heidegger is very careful to differentiate his idea of Being from others). Dasein (Being There)... It's important to understand the 'Being' in 'Being There' as a verb. 'Existing There.' Later in Being and Time Heidegger expands the Being (existing) of Dasein to include Being-in, Being-alongside, Being-with. Notice the location adverbs. Dasein can't 'be-in' or be-alongside existence and be existence at the same time, can it? Another definition Heidegger gives of Dasein is Being-In-The-World. Another one is 'care,' stating that this relationship is pre-ontilogical and in many ways constitutes Dasein itself. Given the manifold ways in which Dasein is explicitly linked with a singular existing entity (particularly when he says that Dasein is "...an entity which in each case I myself am), I think it's fairly clear that within his framework, Dasein is not synonymous with existence (understanding 'existence' as an entity or sum of entities). In fact, Heidegger would have qualms with the term 'existence', as commonly understood, as he formulates an idea of 'world' to stand in place of an idea of existence, where the 'world' is the region wherein Dasein encounters entities present-to-hand and interacts with objects ready-to-hand (there very ready-to-handedness being a quality informed by Dasein's interest). eotvos

The general thrust of your argument, that Heidegger's conception of Dasein is not synonymous with existence is correct. All I meant to say is that the article, when it claims that Dasein is synonymous with existence is not talking about Heidegger's concetption, it is talked about Dasein as a German word (it is a German word, not a Heideggerian neologism, albeit a technical term). Heidegger is quite clear (particularly in the Letter Concerning Humanism) that Dasein is in no way equivalent to existence, because, primordially, Dasein ek-sists before it exists. Ig0774

Ah, my mistake. Letter on Humanism...well, for the class I'm in we began with a survey of Husserl's phenomenology, then worked from Heidegger's later works (What is philosophy, Discourse on Thinking, What is metaphysics, Letter on Humanism, Essence of Truth, among others) back to Being and Time. The teacher's intent was to familiarize the class with the main thrust of Heidegger's thought before dealing with Being and Time, the implication being that Being and Time would be the most difficult. But on the contrary I've found Being and Time to be considerably more lucid than his later essays.... Anyways, I guess I should create a wikipedia account or something... eotvos

Regarding your point about the intention of the article, I feel like the author slips between explicating Dasein as a German word and a Heideggarian concept without drawing a distinction (Dasein is synonymous with existence, as in I am pleased with my existence (ich bin mit meinem Dasein zufrieden), but it mustn't be mistaken for a subject) The first clause is fine with the German word, but the second refers to the word as Heidegger's term. At least that is how it seems to me. eotvos

You're absolutely right about that slip. These things happen on Wikipedia, especially since numerous people write various parts of the article. Being and Time is indeed lucid, but at the same time bears reading and rereading. Heidegger's essays, particularly the ones you mention, are much better for developing a single theme (personally, I read Being and Time before the rest of them and find myself continuing rediscovering how it links up with his other essays). I will endeavor to correct the sentence in question, however. Ig0774

What is studied in Being and Time is not Dasein, but Dasein's way of being. Dasein's activity, its way of being, manifests a stand it is taking on what it is to be Dasein. "Its ownmost being is such that it has an understanding of that being, and already maintains itself in each case in a certain interpretedness of its being"(36) The self-interpreting way of being is, for Heidegger, existence. "That kind of being towards which dasein can comport itself in one way or another, and always does comport itself somehow, we call existence" (32). Essentially, only self interpreting beings, human being (emphasis on being, not to be taken as a subject), exists. So beneath it all, in colloquial German, Dasein can mean "everyday human existence" and heidegger uses it to refer to human being, thus Dasein eventually involves, and becomes synonomous with existence! (here's a long quote)

"What have we gained by our prepatory analysis of dasein, and what are we seeking?...When we came to analyze this being, we took as our clue existence, which, in anticipation, we had designated as the essence of Dasein...By working out the phenomenon of care, we have given ourselves an insight into the concrete makeup of existence (274)

More quotes involving Dasein and existence: “The ‘essence’ of Dasein lies in its existence” (67), “Dasein understands itself in terms of its existence" (33)Also, "Existence is the determining character of Dasein" (33) "The question of existence never gets straightened out except through existing itself. The question of existence is one of Dasein's ontical 'affairs' " (33)

Being and Time is so packed with original thought...that well, it takes time to unpack...you think you have it, but then one line changes the entire outlook of the philosophy... -zeldy345

Karl Jaspers

I have added a section on Karl Jaspers’ use of the term “Dasein” because it plays a pivotal part in his philosophy, where he uses it extensively, yet means something completely different to what Heidegger meant by the term. Josh.passmore 13:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Use in theology

I think the term has been used by contemporary theologians, this would need a reference of some kind. ADM (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Book of Tea

Has anyone verified the Book of Tea story? There's only one reference and I can't find where in the book of tea Dasein is supposedly mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.48.163 (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should consider removing this alleged relation altogether. While I believe it is an interesting theory, it seems unfounded and less than helpful. It does not give an expository summary of the relationship, and is wholly out of context. Furthermore, for the sake of clarity and correctness, especially within the realm of 20th-century German phenomenology, a more precise genealogy of the term may be designated for this purpose. I might suggest tracing its origins back to Darwin's use of the term Dasein, with an emphasis on organic life, or even through the thought of Hegel, Husserl, and Nietzsche. These seem more relevant to our discussion of Dasein in the context of Heidegger's own work. Kconca (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism

The text in this article is lifted entirely from http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Dasein without credit and also is hardly a reputable source. This plagiarized text should be deleted. ProfGiles (talk) 04:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's the other way around. That page is a copy of this article. To be sure of plagiarism or copyright violation we need a date on the page that's earlier than the date the content was added here. Also if there is plagiraism we don't have to delete it, we just have to provide proper attribution. If it were a copyright violation, we'd have to delete it pronto. Thanks for checking this out. Jojalozzo 05:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Relation

The article relates to "Dasein" (Heidegger), a professional term in philosophy. --Arebenti (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's Fix The Horrible Citations, Shall We?

It would appear that in the construction of this page there was no adherence to a uniform standard of citation, let alone a common sources, translated or otherwise. I have made a series amendments to the page; adding proper footnotes denoting the section and page numbers of contested information, quotations where needed, direct in-text citations, ect.... I have also taken the liberty of using the APA format for my citations and footnotes. Similarly, I gather by this talk page that most here have a working knowledge of John Macquarrie and Edward Roinson's 1962 translation. Therefore, I have endeavored to consolidate all citations from this source, and revise those which did not conform to this text. I have refrained from making any groundbreaking syntactical changes to the body of text for this page, although at present I believe it could benefit from a more clear and concise presentation. Hopefully we can revive an effort to clean this page up, since it reads as if a high school student took a cleaver to Heidegger's work.

Kconca (talk) 05:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Aleksandr Dugin?

No source, the piece about him using Dasein seemed completely out of place. The information also didn't have any source and was irrelevant.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dasein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090206183341/http://www.college-de-france.fr:80/default/EN/all/phi_sci/p1184676830986.htm to http://www.college-de-france.fr/default/EN/all/phi_sci/p1184676830986.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Collins and Selina (1998)

The title given for the 1998 work by Jeff Collins and Howard Selina is Heidegger for Beginners, but surely it should be Introducing Heidegger: A Graphic Guide: [1]? Heidegger for Beginners (2007) is by Lemay, Pitts and Gordon. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dasein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206183341/http://www.college-de-france.fr/default/EN/all/phi_sci/p1184676830986.htm to http://www.college-de-france.fr/default/EN/all/phi_sci/p1184676830986.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Dasein, blood and soil, and Nazism

I've added a couple of quotes, taken from Martin Heidegger and Nazism. One where Heidegger discusses the relationship between Dasein and "blood and soil", and another where he invokes the concept in support of the Nazi election campaign. It seems to me that these quotes are pretty clear evidence that Heidegger's philosophy and politics were closely intertwined. However, adding the claim would be WP:OR. Conversely, so would commentary seeking to disentangle them, unless based on WP:RS analysis of the quotes in question JQ (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Removal of wording about earlier usage

Some wording that was present in the article for many years was removed. I suggest that the wording be retained.

Timeline of additions and removals:

• 15 Feb 2008: added "The word Dasein was used by several philosophers before Heiddeger, ..."
• 01 Nov 2009: added "most notably Ludwig Feuerbach, ..."
• 08 Jul 2012: changed "Ludwig Feuerbach" to "Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel" (who was earlier)
• 05 May 2020: added additional details (including citation to G.W.F. Hegel)
• 27 Aug 2023: removal of the above
• 13 Aug 2024: re-added the above
• 13 Aug 2024: re-removal of the above

Reasons to retain the content in question:

1. The content did not clearly violate any Wikipedia policy.
2. The content was sourced.
3. The content was in the article for over a decade (and the original wording for 15 years), with apparently no controversy.
4. The section title "Heidegger's reinterpretation" clearly indicates that it's about a reinterpretation on the part of Heidegger, and this title (or similar) was also in the article for many years. The longevity of that title and supporting content establishes it as relevant, as hundreds of editors have seen it and not removed it. Removing information about previous interpretations of "Dasein" in philosophical contexts negates that section's obvious and established meaning and purpose.
5. Suppression of any information that the word "Dasein" was used in philosophical contexts prior to Heidegger gives the false impression that Heidegger was the first to do so.
6. The article title is "Dasein", not "Dasein (Heidegger concept)", which means the article is not required to contain only Heidegger-specific information. While there may be subjective preference for one philosopher over another (WP:POV), no objective reason has been given why only one preferred philosopher's interpretation should be covered and some other philosopher's excluded.
7. Even readers interested only in the Heidegger-specific information may still need to know the overall history, that the term was used by other philosophers (not to provide a dictionary, just historical accuracy).
8. If other philosophers' usages of "Dasein" are less commonly known, WP:DUE suggests giving those usages less coverage. This was already the case before the removal.
9. Removing long-standing and sourced content, on the basis of one editor's opinion that certain things are not relevant, seems to run counter to various Wikipedia policies, including WP:POV ("Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased") and WP:E ("Rather than remove imperfect content outright, fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't").

In short: for the above reasons, it's unclear that long-standing content (over a decade) that has potential value and relevance should be removed. I propose that it be retained, or at least restored and then tagged as needed (as suggested by WP:E). -- HLachman (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @HLachman,

Thanks for using the talk page! Article history does not carry any weight on Wikipedia, so I'll respond just in terms of the current version and current policy/guidelines.

As best I can see, the only use of the German term "Dasein" that meets the notability criteria for inclusion on English Wikipedia is Heidegger's use, which is such a departure from the normal meaning of the word (whether in ordinary conversation or in academic philosophy) that translators just threw up their hands. By contrast, all of the English translations of Hegel's work translate his use of "Daseyn", although they do so in different ways.

Put differently, I deleted the mention of Hegel because Heidegger is not developing Hegel's concept; he is starting a new conversation about something else. If mentioning Hegel helped to clarify Heidegger's meaning, I would have no objections. As far as I can see, however, it only introduces unnecessary complications.

I don't think it's worth changing the title of the article, but maybe it would be appropriate to add a hatnote to clarify the topic and perhaps also to link out to German Wiktionary and the English article existence? In any event, I'm going to go ahead right now and change the section header "Heidegger's reinterpretation" to "Meaning". Its opening sentence already clarifies that the meaning under discussion is non-standard.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Patrick Welsh: I reverted your edit to the section header, because it was done unilaterally while the material in question is being discussed (here), and seems to have been done without regard for the reasons why that title was chosen in the first place. This exacerbates the problem I raised rather than solving it. Now, I'll respond to your individual points:

• "Article history does not carry any weight on Wikipedia". Longevity, by itself, was not my point. It's that many editors saw the text over that period, and saw nothing controversial in it. I'm questioning whether, in that situation, the opinion of one editor warrants removing the text (rather than, say, improving or tagging it), while also considering that multiple other editors apparently support including it (i.e., those editors who added or modified that text, plus myself).
• You referenced WP:NOTABILITY. That policy says, "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article." Therefore, it's not relevant to this discussion.
• "I deleted the mention of Hegel because Heidegger is not developing Hegel's concept". That, by itself, doesn't justify removing the content. If it did, one might edit the Google article to remove mention of "googol", or edit the Engelbert Humperdinck (singer) article to remove mention of the German composer, or edit the Operation Warp Speed article to remove mention of Star Trek, or edit the Computer article to remove mention of the earlier meaning, "a person who carried out calculations or computations"... all on the basis of the later thing being separate from the earlier thing. But nobody is doing that, or even suggesting it.
• "it only introduces unnecessary complications". It didn't. But if you think the meaning wasn't clear, you could improve the wording to clarify it.
• "I don't think it's worth changing the title of the article". Nobody suggested doing so.
• "maybe it would be appropriate to add a hatnote to clarify the topic". Probably not. It was pretty clear before.

In short, I've addressed all of your points. You haven't addressed all of mine (there were 9 of them). Therefore, for the reasons I gave in my original post above, I'm still in favor of retaining the deleted text. -- HLachman (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It's that many editors saw the text over that period, and saw nothing controversial in it.

Yes, this is merely the standard argument from longevity. It's considered lacking because this is the strongest possible interpretation of events: it's equally if not more plausible that editors do not notice, or notice and do not spend their time correcting, specific flaws. It's simply not an argument worth making in any case, see WP:BEENHERE.

WP:N

It's fairly common (and fairly harmless) for editors to conflate notability with the related intra-article content policies of due weight and balance, as was likely intended here. The point being made is the prominence afforded to this statement in the article does not reflect its prominence in the sources.

googol

Similarly, it's not the most illuminating to make arguments merely based on what errors other articles may or may not contain, see WP:OTHERCONTENT.

Patrick's core point is that the article is not about the German word Dasein, it's about the concept as formulated in our sources—i.e. predominantly a Heideggerean concept. If secondary analysis does not make note of possible connections to the work of others, we shouldn't either just because the same string of letters happened to appear. This could result in claims constituting original research if we insist that two distinct things should be related without any sources having done so first. Patrick has articulated multiple points that indicate Hegel's use is simply irrelevant to the article's subject—what is understood to be a specifically Heideggerean concept. Remsense ‥ 诉 02:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Responding:

• "Patrick's core point is that the article is not about the German word Dasein". Actually, I wasn't suggesting that the article should be about the German word, only that it provide the reader with information about how "Dasein" has been used as a philosophical term.
• "editors do not notice, or notice and do not spend their time correcting, specific flaws". I agree that we don't know their opinions about this content. But some editors are apparently in favor of it (those who added or modified that content, plus myself). And some editors aren't. I'm not sure we have enough opinions to claim consensus on either side.
• "just because the same string of letters happened to appear". I never put that forth as a reason. I'm only concerned about readers who are interested to know how "Dasein" has been used as a philosophical term.
• "Hegel's use is simply irrelevant to the article's subject". I don't personally have a conclusion about how relevant or irrelevant the other authors are (e.g., Hegel and Feuerbach). Cited sources show them all discussing "being" (as a philosophical concept) in one way or another.
• "it's not the most illuminating to make arguments merely based on what errors other articles may or may not contain". I didn't mean to say or imply that those other articles are in error (and to say that they have errors seems to be an assumption). I'm just saying that it's fairly ordinary for an encyclopedia (Wikipedia or otherwise) to include information about prior usages of a given term, especially if it's within the same field.
• "intra-article content policies of due weight and balance". I was the first to reference that policy (see #8, above). Nobody responded to my point on that. Note that there are sources discussing prior usages of "Dasein" as a philosophical term, one is the Hegel citation that was deleted, and here are two others (from plato.stanford.edu and www.researchgate.net). While the prior usages may be far less known than Heidegger's, merely adding a single sentence about them (such as in the deleted text) would seem to be consistent with WP:DUE (in support of my point #8, also #5 and #7).

Therefore, I'm still in favor of retaining the deleted text (while being open to other opinions). -- HLachman (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello.

First of all I would like to point out that my old edit (2020) was caused by an error on the page: "The term has been used by several philosophers before Heidegger, most notably Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, with the meaning of human 'existence' or 'presence'". I had left the first part of the sentence, but I deleted the last part using the original source of Hegel, whose thought had been distorted. Therefore, what had been present on the page for years was at least misleading, and I tried to remedy the errors of others, without wanting to complicate things, but rather to clarify them.

For the rest, I fully agree with the theses supported by @HLachman. NONIS STEFANO (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing I've seen in what you cited that connects Hegel's use of the term with the Heideggerean sense. You seem to be conflating discussing prior usages with a mere parenthetical mention of the original term used by a text, which is all that each cited source does. This is because the uses are not particularly related, and thus not worth artificially fusing into one topic for an encyclopedia article. It's not one "philosophical term" separate from just Existence. The coherent scope of the topic is Heideggar's use specifically, as we are not a dictionary. Remsense ‥ 诉 06:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)