<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Martin Heidegger\u2019s main interest was to raise the issue of Being, that is, to make sense of our capacity to make sense of things. Additionally he wished to rekindle the notion that although difficult to understand, this issue was of utmost importance (Dreyfus 1991). Heidegger\u2019s study, however, was of a specific type of Being, the human being, referred to by Heidegger as \u2018Dasein\u2019, which literally means \u2018Being-there\u2019 (Solomon 1972). By using the expression Dasein, Heidegger called attention to the fact that a human being cannot be taken into account except as being an existent in the middle of a world amongst other things (Warnock 1970), that Dasein is \u2018to be there\u2019 and \u2018there\u2019 is the world. To be human is to be fixed, embedded and immersed in the physical, literal, tangible day to day world (Steiner 1978). The purpose of this paper is to offer an explanation of what Heidegger meant by \u2018Being-in-the-world\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Heidegger was concerned that philosophy should be capable of telling us the meaning of Being, of the where and what Dasein is. Heidegger postulated that, the world \u2018is\u2019, and that this fact is naturally the primordial phenomenon and the basis of all ontological inquiry. For Heidegger the world is here, now and everywhere around us. We are totally immersed in it, and after all, how could we be anywhere \u2018else\u2019? Husserl had previously spoken of a \u2018Lebenswelt\u2019 (life-world) to stress the solidness of the human encapsulation within reality, but Heidegger\u2019s \u2018grounding\u2019 was more complete. Heidegger articulated this entrenchment with the composite, In-der-welt-sein (a \u2018Being-in-the-world\u2019, a \u2018to-be-in-the-world\u2019) (Steiner 1978).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For Heidegger, \u201cDasein is an entity which, in its very Being, comports itself understandingly towards that Being.\u201d And further,<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cDasein exists. Furthermore, Dasein is an entity which in each case I myself am. Mineness belongs to any existent Dasein, and belongs to it as the condition which makes authenticity and inauthenticity possible.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
For Heidegger, Dasein may exist in either one of two modes, (authenticity or inauthenticity), or it is modally undistinguished, but Dasein\u2019s character needs to be understood a-priori as being \u2018grounded\u2019 in the state of Being that he called \u2018Being-in-the-world\u2019 (Heidegger 1962).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2018Being-in-the-world\u2019, for Heidegger stood for a unitary phenomenon and needed be seen as a whole. However, Heidegger was aware that the expression had several components to its structure. There was the duty to examine the ontological structure of the \u2018world\u2019 and define its \u2018in-the-world-ness\u2019. Also, the identity of the \u2018Who\u2019 that is within the mode of Dasein\u2019s average everydayness needs to be sought out, and, the ontological establishment of \u2018Being-in\u2019 needs to be proposed (Heidegger 1962).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Heidegger was concerned with Dasein\u2019s distinctive method of being-in, which is at variance with the manner in which one object can be in another (Dreyfus 1991). In Being and Time Heidegger wrote;<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWhat is meant by \u201cBeing-in\u201d? Our proximal reaction is to round out this expression to \u201cBeing-in\u201d \u2018in the world\u2019\u201d, and we are inclined to understand this Being-in as \u2018Being in something\u2019 \u2026.as the water is \u2018in\u2019 the glass, or the garment is \u2018in\u2019 the cupboard. By this \u2018in\u2019 we mean the relationship of Being which two entities extended \u2018in\u2019 space have to each other with regard to their location in that space\u2026\u2026Being-present-at-hand-along-with in the sense of a definite location-relationship with something else which has the same kind of Being, are ontological characteristics which we call \u2018categorial\u2019 \u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
For Heidegger, these types of \u2018categorial\u2019 Beings belong to entities whose kind of Being is not Dasein. Heidegger continued that, on the other hand, Being-in is an existentiale state of Dasein\u2019s Being and it cannot be thought of in terms of the Being-present-at-hand of a corporeal Thing \u2018in\u2019 an entity which is present at hand. Heidegger went on to say, \u201c \u2018Being-in\u2019 is thus the formal existential expression for the Being of Dasein, which has its Being-in-the-world as its essential state.\u201d According to Steiner (1978), \u201cHeidegger is saying that the notion of existential identity and that of world are completely wedded. To be at all is to be worldly. The everyday is the enveloping wholeness of being.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is the convening of \u2018Dasein\u2019 and the \u2018world\u2019 which gives definition to both, and the solidness of these terms is covered thinly by the English word \u2018facticity\u2019 (Steiner 1978). Heidegger wrote;<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cDasein\u2019s facticity is such that its Being-in-the-world has always dispersed [zerstreut] or even split itself up into definite ways of Being-in. The multiplicity of these is indicated by the following examples: having to do with something, producing something, attending to something and looking after it, making use of something, giving something up and letting it go, undertaking, accomplishing, evincing, interrogating, considering, discussing, determining\u2026. All these kind ways of Being-in have concern (\u2018Bersorgen\u2019) as their kind of Being.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Heidegger (1962) used the term \u2018concern\u2019 as an ontological term for an existentiale to select the Being of a possible way of Being-in-the-world because he felt that the Being of Dasein itself was to be revealed as \u2018care\u2019 (Sorge) and that because Being-in-the-world fundamentally belongs to Dasein, its Being concerning the world is fundamentally concern. Concern is the temporal meaning which Being-in-the-world has for human beings and it is the time configuration of human life which is the identical concern which human beings have for the world. If human beings had no concept of time they would have no reason to be engaged or implicated in the world in a human way. It is the awareness of temporality which establishes that the relationship that human beings have with the world is through concern (Warnock 1970).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Not everything is possible for every human being. Every person\u2019s options are limited in one way or another and \u2018concern\u2019 is a way that humans can decide what decision could be the correct one in order to move from one condition to another. Choices are made in the world in which humans exist surrounded by other humans. Human beings are characterised by uniqueness, one from another, and this uniqueness gives rise to a set of possibilities for each individual. All human beings are continually oriented towards their own potential, among which are the possibilities of authentic and inauthentic existence. If, whilst moving forward, the standards and beliefs and prejudices of society are embraced, individuals may fail to differentiate themselves from the masses. This, Heidegger regarded as living an \u2018inauthentic\u2019 existence (Warnock 1970).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For Heidegger, Authentic existence can only come into being when individuals arrive at the realisation of who they are and grasp the fact that each human being is a distinctive entity. Once human beings realise that they have their own destiny to fulfill, then their concern with the world will no longer be the concern to do as the masses do, but can become an \u2018authentic\u2019 concern to fulfill their real potentiality in the world (Warnock 1970).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Heidegger described the self of everyday Dasein as the \u2018they-self\u2019,<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cwhich we distinguish from the authentic Self \u2013 that is, from the Self which has been taken hold of in its own way [eigens ergriffenen]. As they-self, the particular Dasein has been dispersed into the \u2018they\u2019, and must first find itself.\u201d And further \u201cIf Dasein discovers the world in its own way [eigens] and brings it close, if it discloses to itself its own authentic Being, then this discovery of the \u2018world\u2019 and this disclosure of Dasein are always accomplished as a clearing-away of concealments and obscurities, as a breaking up of the disguises with which Dasein bars its own way.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Heidegger (1962) said that deliberation on these matters have brought about a solid understanding of Dasein bringing the average everydayness of Being-in-the-world into view.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Heidegger felt that the all-determining focal point of our Being-in-the-world was going unnoticed because the daily realities of our existence are so trite and numerous but, for Heidegger, \u2018knowing\u2019 was a kind of Being and Dasein only discovers itself when it comprehends reality. Knowledge is not an inexplicable bound from subject to object and return (Steiner 1978),<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cBut no sooner was the \u2018phenomenon of knowing the world\u2019 grasped than it got interpreted in a \u2018superficial\u2019, formal manner. The evidence for this is the procedure (still customary today) of setting up knowing as a \u2018relation between subject and Object\u2019 \u2013 a procedure in which there lurks as much \u2018truth\u2019 as vacuity. But subject and Object do not coincide with Dasein and the world.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Heidegger (1962) said that a principle task was to reveal that knowing has a phenomenal character of a Being which is in and towards the world. Knowing is the possession of those human-Things which are able to know and is an internal characteristic of those entities. Heidegger expanded upon this by saying that knowing is a \u2018concern\u2019 and to know something, even with little interest, is a tangible kind of Being-in-the-world. In fact for Heidegger, even forgetting modifies the primordial Being-in and even as knowledge did not create the world nor forgetting destroy it, it follows that Dasein only realises itself when it grasps reality (Steiner 1978).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Heidegger proclaimed that we are \u2018thrown\u2019 into the world and that our Being-in-the-world is a \u2018thrownness\u2019 [Geworfenheit]. To Heidegger this concept is a primordial banality which had long been overlooked by metaphysical conjecture. Humans beings are thrown with neither prior knowledge nor individual option into a world that was there before and will remain there after they are gone (Steiner 1978). Heidegger wrote;<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThis characteristic of Dasein\u2019s Being \u2013 this \u2018that it is\u2019 \u2013 is veiled in its \u2018whence\u2019 and \u2018whither\u2019, yet disclosed in itself all the more unveiledly; we call it the \u2018thrownness\u2019 of this entity into its \u2018there\u2019; indeed, it is thrown in such a way that, as Being-in-the-world, it is the \u2018there\u2019. The expression \u2018thrownness\u2019 is meant to suggest the facticity of its being delivered over.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
No biology of parentage can answer the question of whence we came into Being. Neither do we know toward what end our existence has been projected, apart from our position in relation to death. Yet for Heidegger, it is this twofold mystery that makes the \u2018thrown\u2019 state of human life the more absolute and tangible. Human kind is \u2018delivered over\u2019 to a total, all-encompassing \u2018thereness\u2019 and Dasein must occupy this presentness and take it up into its own existence. Heidegger wished to emphasise the unmistakable \u2018thereness\u2019 of the world into which we are thrown (Steiner 1978).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The world into which our Dasein is thrown has others in it, and the existence of others is totally indispensable to its facticity of Being-there. Understanding of others in the world and the association of the ontological status of others with our own Dasein is, in itself, a form of Being. Heidegger said that Being-in-the-world is a being-with, and that the understanding of the presentness of others is to exist. However, being-with presents the possibility of comprehending our own Dasein as an everyday Being-with-one-another where we may come to exist not on our own terms, but only in reference to others. In so doing, we eventually come to not be ourselves, and surrender our existence to a formless \u2018Theyness\u2019 or alterity (Steiner 1978).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For Heidegger, the \u2018belonging to others\u2019 is a drastic irresponsibility because the \u2018they\u2019 deprives the particular Dasein of its own accountability by making every decision and judgement for it. The \u2018they\u2019 can do this most easily because it can always be said that \u2018they\u2019 were responsible for such and such. Heidegger said that this passivity creates the alienated self, the \u2018Man\u2019 who is fatally disburdened of moral autonomy and, therefore, of moral responsibility. This \u2018Man\u2019 can know no ethical guilt. Heidegger called this the \u2018self of everyday Dasein\u2019 or the \u2018they-self\u2019, the total opposite of the solid singularity of a Dasein which has grasped itself. This crucial distinction was important for Heidegger as it is the distinction between an authentic and an inauthentic human existence (Steiner 1978).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Inauthentic Dasein does not live as itself but as \u2018they\u2019 live. In fact, for Heidegger, it barely exists at all and it exists in a state of fear [Furcht](Steiner 1978). This fear is distinct from anxiety [Angst]. Fear could be experienced when a threat to our life, signifying our situation is recognised, but anxiety is experienced in the face of nothing in particular in our situation (Warnock 1970). According to Warnock (1970), anxiety is that which drives us to swamp ourselves in the insignificant, the common and in all of the elements of an inauthentic existence. However, Steiner (1978), wrote that fear is a part of a trite communal reaction whereas anxiety [Angst] is<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cthat which makes problematic, which makes worthy of our questioning, our Being-in-the-world. Angst is one of the primary instruments through which the ontic character and context of everyday existence is made inescapably aware of, is rendered naked to, the pressures of the ontological. And further, Angst is a mark of authenticity, of the repudiation of the \u2018theyness\u2019.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Upon close investigation, Steiner\u2019s interpretation is closer to Heidegger\u2019s meaning surrounding Angst than is Warnock\u2019s. Heidegger wrote that an understanding of Being belongs to the ontological structure of Dasein, and he proposed that there is an understanding state of mind in which Dasein is disclosed to itself. Heidegger sought a simplified way of disclosure to bring the structural totality of Being to light and he hypothesized that the state of mind that would satisfy his requirements, was the state of anxiety. Taking the phenomenon of falling as his departure point and distinguishing anxiety from fear, Heidegger wrote;<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cAs one of Dasein\u2019s possibilities of Being, anxiety \u2013 together with Dasein itself as disclosed in it \u2013 provides the phenomenal basis for explicitly grasping Dasein\u2019s primordial totality of Being.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Steiner (1978) offers a demarcation in that, a further aspect of Dasein, as argued by Heidegger, is that Dasein is grounded in language; Being-in-the-world expresses itself in discourse. Furthermore, he made a distinction between \u2018Rede\u2019, \u2018the speech of Dasein\u2019 and \u2018Gerede\u2019, \u2018talk\u2019. He avoided the triteness of using the term \u2018idle chatter\u2019 for \u2018talk\u2019 because it was far too reassuring for what he wanted to say. For Heidegger, \u2018talk\u2019 had lost its primary relationship-of-being toward the talked about entity and all that \u2018talk\u2019 was doing was to \u2018pass words along\u2019 or, to \u2018gossip emptily\u2019, fostering illusions of understanding that have no real comprehension. Dasein-with-others takes place in an echo chamber of nonstop bogus interaction, with no cognition as to what is being communicated (Steiner 1978).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The differences between authentic and inauthentic lives were contrasted by Heidegger through the agencies of fear set against anxiety, \u2018speech\u2019 contrasted with \u2018talk\u2019, genuine wonder opposed to mere novelty. Each disparate category comes about as an expected outcome of the complete antithesis between the self-possession of true Dasein and the collective lack of perception of an existence carried out in terms of \u2018oneness\u2019 and \u2018theyness\u2019. Heidegger denoted this latter state as \u2018Verfall\u2019 (\u2018a falling away from\u2019 \u2018a cadence into decline\u2019). Heidegger was careful to point out that the condition of \u2018Verfallensein\u2019 (a fallen state) is not sinful, nor is the term meant to cast a moral value judgement. Heidegger wrote;<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cDasein has, in the first instance, fallen away [abgefallen] from itself as an authentic potentiality for Being its self, and has fallen into the \u2018world\u2019. \u2018Fallenness\u2019 into the world means an absorption in Being-with-one-another, in so far as the latter is guided by idle talk, curiosity and ambiguity. Through the Interpretation of falling, what we have called the \u2018inauthenticity\u2019 of Dasein may now be defined more precisely. On no account however do the terms \u2018inauthentic\u2019 and \u2018non-authentic\u2019 signify \u2018really not\u2019, as if in this mode of Being, Dasein were altogether to lose its Being. \u2018Inauthenticity\u2019 does not mean anything like Being-no-longer-in-the-world, but amounts rather to quite a distinctive kind of Being-in-the-world \u2013 the kind which is completely fascinated by the \u2018world\u2019 and by the Dasein-with of Others in the \u2018they\u2019. Not-Being-its-self [Das Nicht-es-selbst-sein] functions as a positive possibility of that entity which, in its essential concern, is absorbed in a world. This kind of not-Being has to be conceived as that kind of Being which is closest to Dasein and in which Dasein maintains itself for the most part.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
For Heidegger then, \u2018inauthenticity\u2019 and \u2018fallenness\u2019 are not mere mishaps or erroneous options. Rather they are essential components of existence, because Dasein is always Dasein-with and a Being-in-the-world into which we have been thrown. Acceding to the enticement of living a mundane existence is simply a part of existing itself. \u2018Fallenness\u2019 was a positive for Heidegger in the sense that there must be \u2018inauthenticity\u2019, \u2018theyness\u2019, and \u2018talk\u2019, for Dasein to become aware of its loss of self and strive for its return to authentic Being. \u2018Verfall\u2019 turns out to be the completely essential prerequisite towards the repossession of self, the struggle toward true Dasein (Steiner 1978).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Dasein is committed to searching out the authentic via the inauthenticity of its Being-in-the-world and Heidegger said that authentic existence is not something which floats above everyday fallingness. He postulated that a proper instrument is needed for seizing the everydayness and he said that that instrument is \u2018care\u2019 [Sorge]. Because in the condition of inauthenticity we \u2018fall away from ourselves\u2019, Heidegger said that we simultaneously fall into a frenetic busyness and an emptiness that gives rise to a sense of the uncanny. As we flap about feeling \u2018homeless\u2019 our everyday familiarity is shattered (Steiner 1978).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is uncanniness that declares the pivotal moments in which Angst brings Dasein face to face with the terrible freedom of deciding whether to remain in inauthenticity or to endeavor to attain self-possession. \u2018Sorge\u2019 is the means of transcendence beyond being Dasein-with and Dasein-in to become Dasein-for and Sorge must be a \u2018care for\u2019 many things. These things include a concern for others, a care for the ready-to-hand, but in principle Sorge is a caring for the presentness and obscurity of Being itself (Steiner 1978). Heidegger said;<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWhen Dasein \u2018understands\u2019 uncanniness in the everyday manner, it does so by turning away from it in falling; in this turning away, the \u2018not-at-home\u2019 gets \u2018dimmed down\u2019. Yet the everydayness of this fleeing shows phenomenally that anxiety, as a basic state of mind, belongs to Dasein\u2019s essential state of Being-in-the-world, which, as one that is existential, is never present-at-hand but is itself always in a mode of factical Being-there \u2013 that is, in the mode of a state of mind.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
For Heidegger, it is Sorge that signifies a mans existence and makes it meaningful. To be-in-the-world in an authentic existential pretext is to be \u2018careful\u2019. Heidegger concluded that \u2018care\u2019 is the primordial state of Being as Dasein strives towards authenticity (Steiner 1978).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Finally, Heidegger said that Angst reveals to Dasein the opportunity of fulfilling itself in a fervent \u2018freedom towards death\u2019. This freedom has been released from the delusions of the \u2018they\u2019 to become accurate, certain of itself, and anxious. The temporality of Dasein is solidified by the awesome certainty that all Being is a Being-toward-death and that, \u201cThe \u2018end\u2019 of Being-in-the-world is death.\u201d Heidegger wrote;<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cDeath is a possibility-of-Being which Dasein itself has to take over in every case. With death, Dasein stands before itself in its ownmost potentiality-for-Being. This is a possibility in which the issue is nothing less than Dasein\u2019s Being-in-the-world. Its death is the possibility of no-longer being-able-to-be-there. If Dasein stands before itself as this possibility, it has been fully assigned to its ownmost potentiality-for-Being. When it stands before itself in this way, all its relations to any other Dasein have been undone. This ownmost non-relational possibility is at the same time the uttermost one.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
In the first division of \u201cBeing and Time\u201d, Heidegger worked out his account of Being-in-the-world and used it to ground an insightful evaluation of long-established ontology and epistemology. For Heidegger, human beings are never directly in the world except by way of being in some particular circumstance; it is Dasein that is Being-in-the-world (Dreyfus 1991).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
References:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Dreyfus, H. 1991, Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger's Being and Time, Division I, The MIT Press, Cambridge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Heidegger, M. 1962, Being and Time, Harper & Row, New York.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Solomon, R. 1972, From Rationalism to Existentialism: The Existentialists and Their Nineteenth Century Backgrounds, Harper & Row, New York.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Steiner, G. 1978, Heidegger, The Harvester Press Limited, Sussex.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Warnock, M. 1970, Existentialism, Oxford University Press, Oxford.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
What Heidegger Means by Being-in-the-World<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":3595,"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"qubely_global_settings":"","qubely_interactions":"","editor_plus_copied_stylings":"{}"},"featured_image_urls":{"full":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"thumbnail":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger-150x150.jpg",150,150,true],"medium":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger-300x187.jpg",300,187,true],"medium_large":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"large":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"1536x1536":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"2048x2048":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"image-240":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger-240x150.jpg",240,150,true],"image-480":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger-480x300.jpg",480,300,true],"image-640":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"image-720":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"image-960":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"image-1168":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"image-1440":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"image-1920":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"qubely_landscape":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"qubely_portrait":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger-540x320.jpg",540,320,true],"qubely_thumbnail":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger-140x100.jpg",140,100,true]},"post_excerpt_stackable":"
What Heidegger Means by Being-in-the-World<\/p>\n","category_list":"","author_info":{"name":"Roy Hornsby","url":"https:\/\/royby.com\/author\/cauliflower\/"},"comments_num":"0 comments","featured_image_urls_v2":{"full":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"thumbnail":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger-150x150.jpg",150,150,true],"medium":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger-300x187.jpg",300,187,true],"medium_large":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"large":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"1536x1536":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"2048x2048":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"image-240":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger-240x150.jpg",240,150,true],"image-480":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger-480x300.jpg",480,300,true],"image-640":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"image-720":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"image-960":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"image-1168":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"image-1440":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"image-1920":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"qubely_landscape":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"qubely_portrait":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger-540x320.jpg",540,320,true],"qubely_thumbnail":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger-140x100.jpg",140,100,true]},"post_excerpt_stackable_v2":"
What Heidegger Means by Being-in-the-World<\/p>\n","category_list_v2":"","author_info_v2":{"name":"Roy Hornsby","url":"https:\/\/royby.com\/author\/cauliflower\/"},"comments_num_v2":"0 comments","acf":[],"qubely_featured_image_url":{"full":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"landscape":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"portraits":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger-540x320.jpg",540,320,true],"thumbnail":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger-150x150.jpg",150,150,true],"medium":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger-300x187.jpg",300,187,true],"medium_large":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"large":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"1536x1536":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"2048x2048":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"image-240":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger-240x150.jpg",240,150,true],"image-480":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger-480x300.jpg",480,300,true],"image-640":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"image-720":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"image-960":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"image-1168":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"image-1440":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"image-1920":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"qubely_landscape":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger.jpg",625,390,false],"qubely_portrait":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger-540x320.jpg",540,320,true],"qubely_thumbnail":["https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/martin-heidegger-140x100.jpg",140,100,true]},"qubely_author":{"display_name":"Roy Hornsby","author_link":"https:\/\/royby.com\/author\/cauliflower\/"},"qubely_comment":0,"qubely_category":null,"qubely_excerpt":"What Heidegger Means by Being-in-the-World","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/essays\/3193"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/essays"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/essays"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3595"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/royby.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3193"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}