Inauthentic Authenticity.

Advisor: Graham Harman

Heidegger, like every other desperate philosopher, wants one to think according to a certain totalitarian manner that was designed by him - a way to think and question our being in the time that we’re in and a part of. In this paper one will go over and analyze his definitions and try to use his own logic against his claims. The main focus of this paper will be on Heidegger’s claim of authenticity; how everyone is a part of the they, and his directions on escaping the they, in pursuit of authenticity through angst, that one can gain or anticipate through certain tasks, like looking forward to one’s death. 

Let’s start with the outline. After spending what one may call not enough time to read a book that’s more than 400 pages, one comes to a conclusion that Heidegger is probably concerned with how one can understand what being in the world actually means, and one’s experience of it. The very first claim is a phenomenological fact of existence that we are already out there, in the world. This is a fact that we have to first assume or understand, according to Heidegger. The human being (as opposed to a non-human animal or any other inanimate object), therefore, to Heidegger, is crucial. Dasein, as he calls it, which also happens to be a German expression, literally means being there. The reason for this, according to Heidegger, is because we are already out there, hammered in the world, engaging with different objects and tools of our experience. This brings one to the division of Ready to hand and Present at hand. Heidegger distinguishes the things in this world (and therefore, the world) based on how and whether one can interact with those things. These objects are therefore either Ready to hand, or Present at hand. 

One could look at a hammer to explain this phenomenon. A hammer fully encapsulates it’s meaning in the fullest sense when and how one interacts with it. A Hammer is Ready to hand since we can use it without thinking too much about it. It’s merely something that we use in order to achieve a given task; ie. using the object without theorizing. Only when the hammer breaks, is when one looks at it as Present at hand. It is when one starts analyzing an object not according to its given function but something completely different; something to be theorized. At that point (in time?), one isn’t concerned with the usefulness of the object, as it simply exists in space without a particular bias or function. The present at hand quality of an object is only temporary though, as it soon loses this when it’s placed in a category of something to be repaired. (ready to hand and present at hand are important definitions to have to analyze and argue for or against Authenticity in Heideggerian terms, as we shall see further into this paper)

Any object that possesses the quality of readiness to hand, has been coined the term Equipment. The potentiality of the number of interactions of different objects provide us with a possibility that any object can be an equipment. Therefore the total number of things that one could potentially interact with is what Heidegger calls the Totality of Equipment. One could now say that the things in the world around us are therefore categorized with respect to one’s involvement with them. Things get reoriented towards one based upon one’s interactions and therefore one’s involvement along with the potentiality of possible interactions and involvements with said objects in the world. This is how and where in the book Heidegger coins the term Totality of Involvements. 

Coming back to Dasein, Heidegger claims that Dasein is also thrown into the world; which implies that there’s obviously a concept of time involved as one’s thrown into the world at a certain point in time. And since its at a certain point in time, there would also be a place and the (cultural) circumstances that come with it. But with these circumstances, there comes the freedom of choice. One does have the choice to decide whether to embrace their thrownness and work with what one’s given(therefore be authentic?). 

This brings us to the they.     

das Man : A step closer to, or away from the enlightenment towards true (in)authenticity.

It’s inevitable for a collective to have common perceptions of ready to hand in terms of different things that are constituents of this vast world. And that is what makes up the they. It’s Dasein’s common world of experience that is ready at hand. A common ground that averages the different possibilities of Dasein. This is what leads to trends, according to Heidegger. Once there’s common ground of ready-to-handness of Dasein itself, one completely dissolves one’s Dasein into the common ground that now exists. Slowly, since one’s Dasein starts merging with the they, therefore one gets lost in the they. 

Suddenly one finds oneself automatically becoming a part of trends that they have come up with. And if that’s the case, if one’s Dasein itself has become a part of a common readiness at hand (the they), that would imply that everything that one would do or think of doing would be derived by the they. One’s opinions, one’s way of living, expressing, thinking, styles, are all now surrendered to the they. Suddenly the freedom of choice of one’s Dasein that accompanied it’s thrownness into the circumstances at a point in time starts to feel beguiled by this common readiness at hand (the they), and the Individuality of Dasein is taken away. At this point, one has become inauthentic, according to Heidegger. And the they is easily able to do this because it involves one in what Heidegger calls idle talk. Idle talk involves the language that the they uses to share experience of a said object, publically without actually experiencing it, and this further alienates one from one’s authentic self since at that point it’s again an average level of an experience that one experiences. And this is how one gets easily lost in the they. When one’s Dasein gets lost in the they, one loses a sense of what it means to be oneself and loses directionality of one’s being in the world. Instead projecting possibilities into the future, one starts to wait for it. This seems to be a major problem for everyone, and for Heidegger. 

He does provide one with a solution, though.

Anxiety. (Angst)

One can be anxious about the possibilities of readiness at hand and being in the world. Angst usually occurs when the smooth totality of involvements of oneself and the ready to hand equipment experience a subtle disruption: A glitch in the matrix, one could call it. At this point, the everydayness of Dasein, the dissolution of Dasein into the they, comes apart. Dasein is then disoriented in the they, and is thrown back upon itself and therefore it regains its freedom of choice and control over its outcome. Dasein is therefore individualized once again. One is anxious about the possibilities of readiness at hand, and that discloses the world to one. 

Anxiety brings one face to face with one’s thrownness.

Anxiety therefore frees one from the they, forcing one to take charge, detaching one from the they. Although, our average everydayness or the they tranquilises us from our anxiety into self assuredness, and in some way provides an illusion of everything going well, and makes one feel at home. It is when we resist that feeling at home, by being anxious or feeling angst, we feel there is something missing, and that’s when the they doesn’t feel at home anymore. Something feels uncanny. 

This reveals two senses of self: Authentic, which reveals one’s individuality as thrownness and angst, or Inauthentic, lost in a crowd, absorbing various opinions of the they as one’s own. One’s almost always inauthentic in one’s everyday life since society or the they never lets one get to know one’s true authentic self. Individuality is always leveled off and becomes flat and more generic as soon as it becomes a part of the they. Heidegger encourages one to experience angst in order to escape the they in order to become authentic. 

But how does one experience true angst?

Death. 

Heidegger claims that one’s been looking at death in the wrong manner. Dasein’s relationship to death is disregarded in its everydayness. One starts having a certain kind of indifference towards death. Heidegger claims this is because death’s uncertainty. One doesn’t know how or when one could face death, therefore one finds it easy to evade thinking about death by escaping into one’s everyday life, and pretend as if death is never going to come close. One could call it a certain kind of crazy procrastination. One therefore starts making decisions as though the time one has is extremely lengthy. Therefore Heidegger wants one to assume that as soon as one has come to life, one is old enough to die. For when dasein is faced with the reality of death and the limitations that come with it, the everydayness suddenly fades away as death is one’s and one’s alone. This is where angst fits in. Anxiety about death implies anxiety about one’s potentiality for being. An excellent example of this was given in the French movie Cleo from 5 to 7, where a woman faces a true sense of dread and anxiety while waiting for her biopsy results, and suddenly one notices a shift in her priorities. Fleeing from one’s death at that point feels like fleeing from one’s potentiality for being. Therefore, facing death forces Dasein into Authenticity. 

Heidegger therefore wants one to anticipate our end or death and it’s unavoidable possibility in order to experience angst, which in turn would make one authentic and reclaim oneself from the they. He also wants one to be resolute about this, so that it would silence the they and guide one’s authentic self. One is constantly tempted to fall back into the they. Resoluteness is what helps one call bak one’s authentic self.

Now that one’s laid out most of the essential principles of this theory, one begins to think- One anticipates death since it is inevitable, and the inevitability of death gives one angst. Eventually to be authentic, Heidegger wants one to anticipate angst. And if one anticipates angst in order to be authentic, is that really authentic at the end of the day? 

This goes back to the Ready to Hand and Present at Hand argument. 

When one looks at something with the intent of observing it as what it is, one sees it as present at hand. One looks at it, observes, and theorizes. One’s only concerned with the bare facts of that thing and its concept. Things aren’t usually perceived as present at hand, they only reveal themselves as present at hand when things are not functional anymore - When a hammer breaks. 

Does this sound a bit familiar? Up till now, one has looked at some things purely to analyze them in facticity in Heidegger’s book in order to later theorize it. (Dasein, the They, Death, Angst. Anticipation, Resoluteness, etc.) And after theorizing some concepts, Heidegger has asked one to put them to use in order to achieve a goal - Authenticity. 

One is always doing things with a view of achieving something. We looked at the example of a hammer previously, where it is ready to hand as we’re using it without theorizing it in its entirety. It is merely a tool and has a function. We don’t realise its present at handness until it breaks, and even then, it’s showing itself as something to be repaired and becomes a part of one’s totality of involvements. 

In a way, Heidegger is asking of one to use one’s angst; As if it were a tool. Suddenly there’s an in order to added to the equation, since now angst is being used to achieve something; it now has been given a function.

The moment one uses one’s angst in a functional manner in Dasein’s everydayness, one could say it becomes ready to hand, in Heidegger’s terms. And as one looked at before, once something is ready to hand, it becomes a part of the totality of involvements. One is directed to use angst without theorizing it, as that part was handled pretty well by Heidegger himself. So for Heidegger, when he theorizes the concept of angst, it is present at hand for him, but if he uses it or if one uses in order to achieve said goal, it has now become ready to hand. Heidegger has therefore given angst a function and it’s now used by one in order to project possibilities into the future, and therefore gain Authenticity. The temporal nature of angst also implies that one also needs to keep experiencing angst in order to be authentic. Therefore one now needs to keep finding new ways to feel angst. 

Angst isn’t the only thing that is being used as a tool here. 

To experience angst, as we saw before, one needs to face the inevitability of Death. Heidegger mentions Death as a means to feel angst, and therefore start projecting possibilities in the future, therefore escaping the they. 

Not only is Heidegger asking one to do so, this theory is aimed at all human beings. And once everyone starts using angst as a tool to find authenticity, what is going to stop it from becoming a part of the totality of involvements, and furthermore, the they? If everyone wants to be authentic, noone is. Once everyone starts using this “method” to find true authenticity, is it really still authentic? Is wanting to be authentic, authentic? Once everyone starts using a common ready to hand method of achieving authenticity, trying to distinguish themselves from the they, everyone becomes more intertwined with the they instead. 

 The sad part is, there is actually no way of finding out whether one is genuinely authentic or not. In fact just by reading Heidegger’s Being and Time one becomes a part of a collective version of the they, who have read the book and are familiar with the concepts. Which brings one to the next question: Does one really need a formula to find one’s authentic self apart from the they? And if there exists said theory or a way (like this one), is it specific to a certain individual, or does it apply to everyone? 

Which in turn, if it does apply to everyone, at that point, doesn’t it become, once again, a part of the they? At that point there is no real use of this theory other than to give one anxiety about not being authentic enough, in the sea of the inauthentic. 

Even if one becomes truly authentic in today’s world, it probably wouldn’t be because they read this book because the moment one starts thinking about being authentic according to this book and it’s theory, one is sucked into a collective “Being and Time” they.

The only thing that probably remains authentic throughout this roller coaster of a process in pursuit of authenticity, is one’s thrownness. One’s thrownness into reading this theory, at that moment in time. One’s history and situation while absorbing this piece of information that may or may not make one more authentic after one’s finished reading this. 

Authenticity, Today.

According to heidegger’s definitions and processes to achieve one’s authentic self, Authenticity to exist especially in the current democratic world is next to impossible for a lot of reasons. Even if one experiences angst and is resolute with one’s decisions, the they in a democracy hold more power over one, so one probably is shunned and shamed by society into agreeing with the they in today’s world. As much as a democracy claims to be individualising, it really isn’t. At the end of the day it’s all a matter of the majority reaching a common consensus, no matter what the cost. 

One always looks to fit in the larger whole, and will always find it easier to fall back into the they in the current world. Validation has become a necessity for human beings in the current era. Humans will do anything to feel validated, and technology combined with capitalism endorses this fact. Validation in itself has become a sense of power and comfort within one’s self. This encourages the effect of the they on one’s Dasein and one once again, gets lost in a sea of opinions and views of others. One will keep getting sucked deeper into this never ending colloid made up of the they as one tries to survive in it. 

It all comes down to survival, and in the twenty first century, survival means approval. The world isn't concerned with whether the common opinion is right, what matters to the world is that its common. And to oppose that with a radically different view, even in a democracy, is heavily frowned upon. 

So one now asks if it is wise to be lost within the they, at least in the current world in order to survive. 

One hopes not. 

Works Cited

Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. Stellar Books, 2013.

Sherman, Glen L. “Martin Heidegger's Concept of Authenticity: A Philosophical Contribution to Student Affairs Theory.” Journal of College and Character, vol. 10, no. 7, 2009, doi:10.2202/1940-1639.1440.