3

I must admit, I am relatively new to existentialist philosophy. But I couldn't help notice the similarities between Heidegger's "Dasein" and Satre's "Being-for-itself". I was wondering, aren't they just the same idea with two different notions?

Same goes with Heidegger's "Vorhandensein" and Sartre's "Being-in-itself".

xaratustra
  • 153
  • 3
  • 2
    you may have a look at Paul Vincent Spade's notes on Sartre – Floridus Floridi Feb 28 '21 at 13:24
  • 2
    They are almost the antipodal twins of each other. Sartre's system is frequently regarded as an upside-down of Heidegger's. For-itself, which is a human form of existence, is non-Being (Nothingness), whereas in-itself is the inert "substance". For-itself needs in-itself but can't contact it, they are incompatible. Dasein (a human form of existence), on the other hand, is Being, a special "region" of it where Being can be listened and taken care of: contact. H's Nothingness is passive and meonic, Dasein dreads of it as of uncanny and annihilation. – ttnphns Feb 28 '21 at 21:30
  • 2
    (cont.) But For S, man is nothingness and so is anxiously vertigous of his own freedom, while Being produces nausea in him. Death is the most intimate possibility for H. For S, Death is not own possibility, it is rather "a casualty". This is very short and very rough on how the two systems differ. – ttnphns Feb 28 '21 at 21:30

1 Answers1

1

I am by no means a Heideggerian scholar, but from my understanding these terms are very close to each other. Sartre was crucially influenced by Heidegger, despite their differences, and often uses expressions along the lines of "Man is thrown into the world", which is even closer to the translation of Dasein as being-in-the-world.

However there is some nuance, insofar as I think that Sartre particularly emphasises the dichotomy en-soi(in-itself)/ pour-soi (for-itself) and uses the word pour (for) because he wants to stress the primacy of absolute freedom and individual responsability. Dasein, literally, means "being there" which doesn't have the same connotation.