David York
In this paper I intend to explicate and comment on some of
the commonalities and differences between the conceptions of Being outlined in
the interpolation of the Tao Te Ching
by Peter Merel and the conception of Being detailed in Martin Heidegger’s paper
Existence and Being. Specifically I
intend to address the differences in the conception of Being as being
meaningful in the context of Being-in-the-world, the significance of mood, and
the manner in which each work states that being can most reasonably think of
itself.
It is important to begin by stating
that this writing is part of a continuos progression of the gradual refining of
an analytical understanding of that which is. A writing of this sort is only an
adequate representation of that which is in so far as it withstands effective
criticism. That is to say this is what I understand, at this time, to be. It is
encouraged that either the uselessness of this writing to be demonstrated by
well thought out criticism, or that it be affirmed as in some way effectively
disclosing that which is, by its survival of effective criticism. Whichever
occurs, the preservation of what is put forth, as it is, is less important than
whether or not the criticism it subjected to refines, affirms, or destroys it -
based on its usefulness in the pursuit of wisdom.
It is also important to address the
issue of comprehension and critique of a text produced by a different culture
than the critic, as well as the issue of comparison of two texts which are
based in different houses of being.
For the purposes of this writing, what is written will strictly address
an English interpretation of a German text, an English interpolation of several
interpretations of a Chinese text, and the comparison of these two works. This writing is targeted at a U.S., English
speaking audience, and is meant to address the usefulness of these two works as
they are interpreted, both for this audience and any fundamental commonalties
which it may share with other audiences. It is not meant to address what may or
may not have been meant by either work as originally written. In other words
this addresses the usefulness of the interpretations and interpolations only,
as that is all that can be discussed in this case.
In making this comparison there are
several issues I will have to address to put this issue in a reasonable
context, as the purpose and context of these two works are significantly
different. For one, the Tao Te Ching itself is a gradual compilation of Taoist
writings and eastern folk wisdom created over a period of several hundred years.
It has no single author and is not intended to be the thorough or methodical
examination of the nature of Being and beings that is more commonly found in
western philosophy. It also bears a greater similarity to early western and
eastern religious and philosophical works in that it tends toward very general,
universal propositions, stated in a non-argumentational
form. Most often, no attempt is made to make a rigorous foundational
explanation. The propositions are seemingly meant to point to an observable
truth in the world, or to make a point, which was neither provable nor
disputable. Also it is important to note that the Tao Te Ching makes heavy use of
metaphors, which convey a point in less specific manner than a literal
proposition.
By contrast the work Existence
and Being is a very deliberate attempt by one thinker to breakdown, refine
and build upon the western philosophical progression of thought, while also
drawing to some extent on works in eastern thought. The paper is meant to be
rigorous, thorough, precise and extending only to what can be substantiated.
His work represents something, which was subjected to a greater degree of
critical examination in its creation. The nature of this work also demanded great
clarity, because he needed to be able teach it as being distinct from other
seemingly similar ideas.
It must be kept in mind that these two works differ in
specific purpose and audience. However, it is also important to realize that
more so than many works in both western and eastern philosophy, these works
bear the commonality of pointing to something, rather than being meant as a
direct representation of things-in-themselves. Heidegger keeps distinct that
his work is first, a process of examination and refinement. Second, his work is not the
thing-in-itself. It is a set of words meant to get at Being. Being-in-the-world is characterized by
interpretation, not by a direct understanding of the exact nature of things.
Similarly, the Tao Te Ching makes the point that The Way is beyond
understanding, and beyond logic. I think
this means that The Way is best grasped through passive harmony and
non-pursuit, not that The Way is totally incomprehensible and isn’t
really even worth discussing. Also, I think it points to the detectable
discrepancy between that which is understood to be and that, which is in
actuality. These two works share the understanding that an understanding of
Being is necessarily an interpretation of Being, not a direct detail of the thing
in itself.
Before I continue, the distinction between Being as opposed
to beings needs to be addressed. The manner in which these two are
distinguished is a fundamental difference between these two works. Within the Tao Te Ching,
Being is viewed as inherently different in that the separate existence of Being
from beings is viewed as an illusion. The relationship between beings and Being
is one of fundamental unity, in that all beings share in Being.
The relation between beings and Being in Heidegger’s Existence and Being differs in that existence is only attributed to
Being, not to beings. This distinction comes from the differentiation between
that which merely is and that which can experience that which is. This is the foundation for the significance
of mood and modes of Being in the meaning of Being.
Modes of Being are considered to be part of the fundamental
nature of Being, but both works, however elaborate each in a different
manner. Again, I use the terminology of
modes of Being for the sake of clarity and precision in comparison. The ideas as I understand them in the Tao Te Ching
are worded differently in this way, though I believe the meaning of the
interpolation has been kept intact. In this discussion, not the way can be
understood as a state of Being which is entangled in the world. This
entanglement differs from that of mentioned in Heidegger’s Being and Time in that it is the product of becoming overly
emotionally involved and overly emotionally active. The way can be understood as a mode of Being
in which the Being escapes that entanglement through a sort of passive
harmonization with the world.
By contrast, a conception of the modes of Being as discussed
in brief in Heidegger’s Existence and
Being and in greater depth in Being
and Time is the conception of Being as having a modal distinction between ownmostness and Being-with-others. Ownmostness,
disclosed in the pathway of Being-towards-death, is a mode of Being in which a
Being escapes its entanglement in the world and in Being-with-others.
Alternatively, this state of Being with others is one in which we experience
our Being, and way of Being, altered and tampered with through a social Being,
by a social being. It is by this and
through this that we become involved in curiosity, ambiguity, and idle talk,
all of which dilute the meaningfulness of an individual. Because ultimately
your death is yours and you die alone, Being-towards-death is a way toward
individuality, and thus, a way for one to have meaningful individual existence. It is through anxiety in the face of Being in
the mode of not Being that Being can switch modes to ownmostness. It is through anticipatory resoluteness that
Being commits itself to direction and focus toward individual meaning.
One of the fundamental similarities between the Tao Te Ching and Existence
and Being is that the meaning of Being is seated beyond the
representational nature of language. Also, Being is understood as inherently
bearing a nature of interpolation. In both cases Being is understood as not
separate from the world and not separable or precisely understandable as
separate.
Both see the fundamental meaning of Being as generally
misguided by Being-in-the-World, particularly amid one’s Being-with-others
- though Heidegger describes it as part
of the fundamental, ontological structure of Being, something which cannot be
altogether avoided. The Tao Te Ching addresses what is very likely the same
phenomenological pattern, though its manner of conceptual interpretation is
different. It instead states that action
and emotional involvement are the primary origin of this misdirection.
It seems the most prominent point of distinction between
these two works that in order to escape the meaningless existence commonly
found in Being-with-others that, one would suggest becoming harmonious and unresistant, realizing your commonality and oneness with
that which is around you, while the other would state that feeling anxiety, not
calm detachment, brings Being into a state in which it is its ownmost, thereby having an own meaning, not plagued
by the same diffusion of meaning found in Being with others. Yet, in the mood of anticipatory resoluteness
a similar detachment from others and from the world is found in Being. Being becomes focused. In one case walled off by ownmostness,
and in the other, similarly separated by the realization of oneness.
Yet, through anticipatory resoluteness, one can also become
calm and harmonized with one’s self. To
some extent Being-with-others can cause a bitter division in the manner in
which Das Man exerts its will on those who are a part of it. It divides
one and disharmonizes them from themselves as they
might be otherwise. In this way the self is turbulent, not passive. When a Being maintains my mood of
anticipatory resoluteness, it is calm in this way, though feeling anxiety
towards death, and in harmony with itself in being its own, even though not in
harmony with the “they-self” – the “anyone”.
Aside from having
fundamentally different structures of understanding, and from elaborating on
them towards significantly different ends, these works have a notable
fundamental commonality. Both of these works disclose a pattern of being fallen
into the world, of being lost amongst the actions and ways of others. One recommends detachment as an answer, as a
path toward easing suffering in the world, particularly that of Being following
the path. The other takes a
significantly different approach, detaching not from the world which might
cause one to suffer where one involved in it, but instead recommends the facing
of death, by which one realizes meaning in individual existence.
David
York is a Senior at Ferrum College with a Major in Philosophy.
Works Used
Heidegger, Martin. Being
and Time, New York: Harper & Row, 1962.
Tse, Lao.
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/taoism/ttcmerel.htm, The Tao Te Ching,
Merel, (1995), 1 Jan 2003.
Heidegger, Martin at:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/heidegg2.htm, and
Existence
and Being, Kaufman, (1949), 1 Jan 2003.
Kirkland, Russel. http://www.uga.edu/religion/rk/basehtml/guides/TMGID.html,
The Taoist Tradition: A Historical Outline, Kirkland, 2 Jan 2003.