Heidegger's phenomenological approach to being versus Anselm's ontological argument

Heidegger Ontology vs. St. Anselm Ontology

Ontology is the branch of metaphysics, which deals with the nature of being (Online Etymology Dictionary December 28, 2007). St. Anselm was the Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093 to 1109, Doctor of the Church, and founder of scholasticism. He was also the originator of the ontological argument for the existence of God. He was born in 1033 in Aosta, Burgundy in Lombardy (Kent 2006). He learned piety from his mother. Early in life, he also developed a love of learning. Martin Heidegger, on the other hand, was one of the most original, important and controversial philosophers of the 20th century (Korab-Karpowiez 2007). He was born on September 26, 1889 in Messkrich, Southwest Germany to a Catholic family. His parents wanted him to become a priest. He attended high school in Konstanz in 1903 with the support of a church scholarship. Then he continued high school in Freiburg. At 17 and while attending this school, he came across the book, "On the Manifold Meaning of Being," by Franz Brentano. This book influenced his thinking on the meaning of being. Heidegger's main focus was on the study of being through an analysis of human existence. He expounded on his ontological argument in his major work, "Being and Time (Korab-Karpowiez)."

Heidegger

In his major work, "Being and Time," Heidegger attempted to access being or "sein" through a phenomenological analysis of human existence or "dasein (Korab-Karpowiez 2007)." "Dasein" to him meant life or existence. Germans used the term to mean the existence of any entity. But Heidegger assigned a special meaning to it. As far back as when he was 17 and after reading Franz Bestano's book, he was preoccupied with the meaning of being. This became the leading question in his major work, "Being and Time," published in 1927. Gleaning from the long history of the meaning attributed to or understood as "being," Heidegger observed that most presupposed it to be a universal concept. He perceived that being was also indefinable when compared with other concepts as well as self-evident yet mostly taken for granted. Although people seemed to understand what "being" means, the truth is that it is really elusive and not understood. He approached the problem through "dasein," the human being as a particular kind of entity. "Dasein" is being-in -- the world and characterized by everydayness and resoluteness towards death. He viewed being as different from a being and other beings. What is commonly grasped as being to him was only a "sense" of being where by something would be understood as something. This perception, according to him, would have to precede any idea or concept of how any particular being existed. It had to be pre-conceptual, non-propositional and, therefore, pre-scientific. It is a "non-thematic" background of understanding, which accompanies an encounter with a being. Heidegger thus perceived that being was not only linked with understanding. It was in itself understanding. The meaning of the world as a whole and as a structure derived from the understanding presented as having purposeful relationships between things. His concept of being was one, which describes everything but being in itself was not a thing at all (Korab-Karpowiez).

Heidegger thus proposed a fundamental ontological argument whereby being preceded knowing, a specific ontology and reflective thought (Korab-Karpowiez 2007). He saw that access to being was possible only through beings themselves and by addressing particular beings. And the best method of doing so was through a series of progressive interpretations. Even then, that access was possible only for the being to whom the question of being was significant or mattered. Heidegger called this being "dasein," which meant "being-there" or existence. The method he used in "Being and Time" sought to limit the characteristics of "dasein" in the task of approaching being itself. He viewed "dasein" not as a man yet nothing other than "man." This distinction was the basis for his claim that being and time were more or other than philosophical anthropology. His account of "dasein" spanned and dissected experiences of anxiety and mortality. He then analyzed the structure of "care" in mortality. He also addressed the problem of authenticity for mortal "dasein" in the struggle to fully exist that it might actually grasp being. There was no indication that "dasein" was capable of that grasp or understanding (Korab-Karpowiez).

Furthermore, Heidegger viewed the authenticity of the individual "daein" as necessarily linked with its "historicality (Korab-Karpowiez 2007). As a mortal, he is stretched between birth and death and placed in the world and its possibilities, which he must assume. In the meantime, his only access to the world and its possibilities has always been only through history and tradition. This was what he meant as "historicality" in the world. Heidegger's argument progresses to the conclusion that the being of "dasein" was time (Korab-Karpowiez).

Comparison

Heidegger did not mention the existence of God in his ontological argument. His sole preoccupation was being. He perceived a being as different from other beings-in -- the world. That perception or understanding of being must precede any idea on how any particular entity existed. That idea must precede concept in itself and set against a non-thematic background when encountering any being. Being had any purpose only in its purposeful relationship with things. It described everything but in itself was not a thing at all. To him, reality began from that understanding of being and progressed to other beings-in-the-world through repetitions in history. It was empirical and inductive. Understanding being alone was a problem to Heidegger. It would be a greater problem to infer a God from that understanding.

On the other hand, St. Anselm poses a generalized stand by drawing on a negative hypothesis. God is that than which nothing could be imagined as greater. Nothing can be greater than that imaginable entity. He furthermore argues that an existent God is greater than a non-existent God. From these two premises, he concludes that the greatest imaginable entity is God and that a God that exists is greater than a God that does not exist. St. Anselm uses absurd logic, phrased in the negative. Heidegger uses everyday and tangible experience and presents it in the affirmative. St. Anselm derives everything else from that generalization of God's existence from logic. Heidegger finds it painstaking and nearly impossible to even completely understand the concept of being.