Eloy Sánchez Rosillo (Murcia, 24 de junio de 1948):

Heidegger moved away from trying to develop an understanding of the world which required bracketing of presuppositions, phenomenological reduction and description. He maintained that Husserl’s approach was hampered by a search for certainty and truth, and that this led him to miss important features of the original subject matter being investigated (Moran 2000). He advocated the ontological view that the lived experience is an interpretive process and this must be incorporated into any understanding of phenomena (Racher and Robinson 2003). Being rather than consciousness or subjectivity is the focus of Heidegger’s work. Rather than discarding Husserl’s theme of intentionality, Heidegger maintained that an understanding of Being is what makes intentionality possible (Gorner 2000). Meaning is sought through interpretation and it is for this reason that he linked phenomenology with hermeneutics, a term originally applied to the exploration and interpretation of biblical texts. Heidegger maintained that phenomena always require interpretation to reveal their essential meaning.

While I have read Heidegger’s seminal work Being and Time (first published in 1927) in translation (Heidegger 1967), without a background in philosophy this work presents considerable challenges. To gain a comprehensive understanding would require an in-depth knowledge of philosophers and philosophical thinking stretching back to Aristotle, Plato and Socrates. As a result this section is largely based on the writing of others who have provided me with an understanding of Heidegger’s interpretive approach. This is drawn principally from the work of Crotty (1998), Moran (2000) and Gorner (2010).

These writers maintain that Heidegger was particularly important because he developed phenomenology as an ontology. Heidegger argued that we live our lives through our experience of the world and not principally by knowing it. Hermeneutic phenomenology became an enquiry into the manner and structures of Being (for this he used the German word Sein). For him Being or presence in the world was a universal concept. Thus, understanding was no longer considered ‘as a way of knowing, but as a mode of being, as a fundamental characteristic of our ‘being’ in the world’ (Koch 1995 p. 831). This Being is revealed using the structures of human existence. Heidegger made the exploration of the ‘question of Being’ and the ‘question of the meaning of Being’ as his life’s work. He maintained that Being, while obvious to all, does not indicate ‘what is Being’ or what it signifies. Being knows itself only in relation to others (Heidegger 1967). Hermeneutic phenomenology therefore became a method of interpretation that directs the investigator to an understanding of Being.

According to Heidegger, in daily life humans live in inauthentic tradition and habituation (Moran 2000 p. 226). His life’s work engaged into inquiry into day to day existence with the purpose of raising this existence to a more authentic level. For him, how things appear must be studied as they essentially present themselves while also considering that they are self-concealing. Through this method of inquiry he sought to search for a genuine self and also an authentic life among others. Heidegger introduced the concept of ‘Being there’ or Being-in-the world’ (Dasein) to explore this further. Dasein is explained by Moran (2000) as follows:

It names human being in so far as it is individualised as myself or someone else and in so far as questioning is its essential mode of relating to Being. Dasein then specifically picks out our individual possession of our existence and the fact that it is a question for us, a question which concerns the nature of Being as such . . . Dasein refers to the specific mode of Being of humans, emphasising its individuality and its role in the disclosure of Being. (p. 238)

Thus to understand Dasein, is to understand the nature or the meaning of phenomenon. It includes an authentic awareness of one’s being, a belonging to the world, and an availability and use of the world while being related to others. Heidegger’s use of the term Dasein is not directly linked to entities such as people or things, rather it is something that ‘is found only in social, historical matrices’ (Scott 1993 p. 70).

As far as Dasein is concerned, to be is to understand. Access to Dasein comes through enquiry into human existence. In understanding, Dasein projects itself on to the possibilities of its being. Dasein includes the past (access to memory), being (in the present), and future (a sense of anticipation) (Gorner 2000 p. 141). To understand Dasein, is to be alert to the kind of situation that gives rise to that question or issues that covers it up. It is only through disclosure and revelation that what is hidden by how things appear in their everydayness can become manifest. This challenges us, but also enables us to be open, to encounter it authentically while being less caught up with other concerns (Heidegger 1962). For Heidegger, Dasein is most true when it is revealed; it is the possibility that is open to all values and meanings, and yet stands out from everything that makes an individual’s life worth living.

To understand this involves recognising that, for the most part, humans live their lives wrapped up in moods and practicalities of everyday life. In order to deal with life’s difficulties humans have an inherent tendency to make things easier where possible. Heidegger (1962) describes this as the ‘falling’ of Dasein. All assertions and judgements taken by individuals are taken against a background of prejudices and pre-judgements, which mostly are not explicitly expressed. In addition, human encounters and experiences are interpreted by what has previously been interpreted

both by ourselves and also by others. Understanding therefore operates from a common consensus and while this is often not expressed, it becomes apparent by the way we relate to things. This Heidegger considers as an inauthentic kind of awareness.

In the quest for authenticity, Heidegger stressed the importance of thoughtful questioning, described as ‘looking for the thoughts behind our thoughts’ (Moran 2000 p. 246). For him, asserting and questioning are important methods for disclosure but he warned that attention also needs to be paid to the nature of questioning itself (Heidegger 1962). He considered that questions do not arise in a vacuum but carry presumptions and pre-judgements which will govern the enquiry, how the question are asked and will also predetermine to a certain extent what will be discovered. Presupposing is an attempt to explore and consider questions beforehand and can lead to greater pre-understanding. This and the mode of access are crucial to both the questioning and the answer and ultimately the achievement of understanding.

Heidegger brought the essential role of humans as questioning beings to an ontological level and considered that it is this that essentially marks out all human existence (Moran 2000). His later work provides an insight into a future where he foretold that the encompassing nature of technology would have the potential to engulf genuinely human modes of existence (Moran 2000).

5.7.1 Hermeneutic Circle

Heidegger (1962) considered that the interpretation of human existence is always changing and an understanding of this considers what is already understood and takes account of the historicity of both of human nature and of the enquirer. Understanding emerges from a development of what is already understood, with the more developed understanding returning to illuminate and enlarge one’s starting point (Crotty 1998 p. 92). This experience of moving dialectically between the part and the whole became known as the hermeneutic circle (Koch 1995, 1996). This circle and search for understanding is not closed, constrained by presuppositions but moves backwards and forwards between the existence to be examined and the nature of the individual. It remains open to new possibilities (Moran 2000). This reciprocal

activity exists as a place between pre-understanding and understanding (van Manen 1990) and from this understanding (verstehen) can emerge.