Dasein Is Time Itself, Not

¶ … Dasein is time itself, not in time," "time is the clearing of the self-concealing of the present."

With reference to the two above quotes from concept of time and the lectures, explain 1) Heidegger's idea of time and briefly comment on its importance for social science.

As we discussed in class, in German the word "Dasein" essentially refers to existence/life and is something which is fundamentally temporal. That's why Heidegger could say that "Dasein is time itself, not in time" as what this really alludes to is the fact that existence is actually not shackled by the human constructs of time, but embodies the flux and ephemerality of time itself.

An aspect of the temporality of the Dasein has to do with the overlapping factors of existence, thrownness and fallenness that characterize the Dasein. The existence of the Dasein refers to the dynamics of the future and the possibility of being. The aspect of thrownness refers to the Dasein's experience in the physical world where possibilities often feel and appear quite limited; this constitutes the sensation and experience of "having-been." Fallenness is another ongoing factor which makes up the temporality of the Dasein. Dasein is surrounded by entities which are and are not Dasein but which still have a presence within the world. Together all of these elements work together so that the Dasein is indeed time itself.

Part of Heidegger's argument revolves around the fact that this temporality consists of a range of factors, such as the basic interconnected of the past, present and future. Time for Heidegger is not a quantitative beast found in the sciences; original time for Heidegger begins itself through the journey of the existence of the being (Dasein). Part of the Dasein's experience in the world is moving through space of infinite potentiality while revisiting the moment of thrownness, with their momentum to the future via existence while experiencing all these elements with others (who are Dasein and not Dasein) in the state of fallenness which makes up the essence of the dynamics of temporality and which ensure that the Dasein is time itself.

Thus, if Dasein is time itself, this means that beingness plays a big role in "stepping into the light" of the present. This indicates that perhaps the Dasein doesn't have to experience the now of the present, it is the now of the present. This is a luminous, clearing process that Heidegger refers to and it helps to unveil that which is present. This idea is directly connected to phenomenology, as they both concern themselves directly with the experience of consciousness and the experience of the individual in the world.

These ideas are so important for social science, because so much of this field is simply concerned with human behavior -- individual and collective human behavior and how human behavior interacts with the world. Heidegger's concept of time comments upon the human experience and posits an idea of time which is more organic to the human condition. Heidegger's proposing an idea about sheer being-ness which makes a fundamental commentary about how the being engages in the experience of living. Simply contemplating these notions and how they manifest in all areas of the social sciences can enlighten exponentially about the human condition. For example some languages (like Russian) don't have a verb to express "to be" in the present simple tense, whereas others do. Russian is a language where one could argue "to be" is seen strictly in the past and the in the future, but that the now is simply now. Thus, the sentence: "I am a teacher" would be translated as "Ja -- ooychietel" which translates literally to the English, as "I -- teacher." In some languages the being-ness of the now is more aptly reflected and is other languages less so. Other phenomena like this manifest themselves in a variety of ways in all fields of the social sciences and can better shed light on the experience of the individual in the world.

2. Utilizing Moeller, describe at least two images or allegories from Zhuangzi and explain their relevance for social science.

One allegory from Zhuangzi that can be quite powerful for the social sciences is the one which describes Zhuangzi dreaming that he was a butterfly. When he awakens, he's himself (the human Zhuangzi), however, he doesn't know if he was the butterfly now, dreaming that it was Zhuangzi or himself, who had just dreamed of Zhuangzi. This is an important allegory for the social sciences as it explains the mutability of experience and existence and the power of social conditioning. Social conditioning dictates that it is of course the first way: Zhuangzi was simply having a dream and then he awoken. But this allegory suggests the opposite and posits that the idea in which individuals interpret reality is not necessarily the way in which things occur. This allegory speaks to the importance of considering other perspectives of interpretation, because quite often, there's no way for the individual to know which one is "correct."

The relevance to the social sciences truly cannot be underestimated and the imprint that this allegory can leave on many branches of the social sciences is significant. This allegory seeks to undermine traditionally held beliefs, positing that in fact the opposite of these beliefs, or simply something else might be true -- or at least at work. For example, if one looks at inner city neighborhoods which have high rates of gang violence, "conflict experts" point to a variety of dynamics which are at work and responsible for this happening -- such as drugs, availability of guns, dysfunctional families, economic disadvantage and a range of other factors. But the opposite might in fact be true. This violence, as some have suggested might be none of these answers and a combination of all of these answers, culminating in a final answer, that often these children involved in gangs and inner-city violence simply feel they have nothing to live for. Just as in the allegory of the butterfly, the answers might be both scenarios: Zhuangzi was both dreaming of being a butterfly and the butterfly was dreaming of being him. As Moeller alludes to, there is a central act of consciousness in the allegory of the butterfly, and one could argue that this was a shared central act of consciousness, just as in the inner city, the sense of having no future is another shared central act of consciousness that contributes to violence.