*** From My Diary ***
*Concerning Heidegger’s ‘Being and Time’
Heidegger’s idea of Dasein (existence) corresponds to my idea of the field of sense and the concept of consciousness in YUSHIKI that is a theory of Buddhism. However, he lacks the Sorge (interest) in something that enable us to live. He can comment on ontologically the fact that we ‘live and exist’, but does not reach necessity of others who ‘gives us the opportunities to live’. His idea of others is limited in a world ‘for somebody X’, and ignores others’ world ‘for somebody Y’. Also, he regards the idea of nature only an aggregation of material things, but not as vivid nature, in which we can live. As long as his idea of Sorge (interest) is a Sorge of somebody, it can ignore inconvenient other beings according to one’s conveniences.
The most significant failure of Heidegger’s philosophy is he could not accomplish the circulation of ontology. He insisted that it is necessary to fall into the logical circulation and should go into it correctly when we consider Being, but he did it only in the side of ‘for someone’ and removed beings. He should have developed his philosophy with the circulation between Being and beings. However, he omitted the latter in order to remove them from the former. Although he permitted the usual view of beings, it was regarded as a decadent from the stand view of ontology. He supported the superiority of Being to beings always. However, is it possible to construct ontology without concrete beings? It likes to consider how to make cups ignoring something liquid that should be poured into them. All cups should be used in order to carry what is drunk. Nevertheless, he considered Being only from the point of form, which is decided in the side of Dasein, the Someone who be now actually.
It should be said that what he observed was the meta-function to meet actual beings. Originally, the meta-Being and usual beings, which I call Mono, are interdependent each other, and both construct the surface of Mebius ring. The face becomes the back and the back becomes the face. The meta-frame itself can be substitute into this frame, and we can deal with the result of ontological observation as a being. And all beings represent Being as something according to it. The ontology can exist only in the twisted circulation between Being and beings.
As the result, he fell into false ideal. Even though ontological Being is superior to beings, we cannot decide what to do without considering actual beings, others which we encounter in our world. He proposed the idea of Mitsein, coexistence, to supplement the room of others, but it was only a convenient fiction for himself. He declared the importance of destiny of Our World based on this idea, and insisted that we should act for it. This thought leaded him to Nazism, but it is not the Nazism that we usually image but narrow and fantastic Nazism. It was correct the Minister of Education in those days critiqued his speech as ‘Individual Nazism’ ignoring practical thought.
After all, his philosophy is a sophisticated style of solipsism. In spite of his careful reasoning from Dasein and denial of traditional schema of subject and object, his thought stays within the field of ‘Ich’. It is true that the world that I experience is within the field of my sense, and also it is impossible to deny the possibility of solipsism. However, the task of philosophy is not to accept or reject it, but to consider why we cannot accept it actually observing the idea of solipsism carefully. Even if it may possible to deny solipsism by analyzing the idea of I, all theoretical reasoning will stop in the front of this possibility, because we cannot deny the possibility that this thought proposed; there is no others. But this is a starting point of practical thought. Through ontological detour, we should arrive at beings, others and what we are now.
I think Heidegger’s thought should belong to modern literature. Traditionally, human stories have suggested us some possible way to live, but it tells us only our inner emotion to outer world. It was written from the stand point of onlooker, and it develops inner world ignoring actual beings in spite of attaching much importance to our world. He used philosophical ideas, words, in order to stimulate our literary mind. At last, his ontological observation serve only for his own inner mind that accept outer others, although usual beings exist in the side of outer world.