Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Philosophy in China

Front. Philos. China    2020, Vol. 15 Issue (3) : 395-408
Heidegger, Communal Being, and Politics
WANG Qingjie()
Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, and Institute of Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Macau, Taipa, Macao, China
Download: PDF(211 KB)  
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

There are two critical, but opposite interpretations of Heidegger’s understanding of being as a social ontology. One charges Heidegger with adhering to an anti-social “private irony,” while the other charges him with promoting a “self-canceling” totality. The current essay replies to these two charges with a discussion of Heidegger’s understanding of being as “communal being,” which is implicated both in the early Heidegger’s concept of “being-in-the-world-with-others” and in the later Heidegger’s keyword of Ereignis. It argues that Heidegger’s understanding of being as communal being is neither identical with totalitizing publicness nor the same as voluntaristic egotism. According to Heidegger, both the publicness of das Man and voluntaristic egotism are the real threats to humanity at present. Because of them, we human beings are in danger of being uprooted from the earth upon which we—as communal beings—have already and always dwelled and lived with others from the very beginning of human history.

Keywords social ontology      Martin Heidegger      being-with      communal being      politics     
Issue Date: 28 September 2020
 Cite this article:   
WANG Qingjie. Heidegger, Communal Being, and Politics[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(3): 395-408.
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
Articles by authors
WANG Qingjie
Related articles from Frontiers Journals
[1] ZHANG Xianglong. The Marginality of Phenomenology[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(3): 472-492.
[2] Mark Kevin S. Cabural. Daoism and the German Mission in Martin Heidegger’s “The Thing”[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(4): 570-592.
[3] LIU Yu-Chao, TSAI Wei-Ding. On Interpretations of Heidegger’s Black Notebooks from the Viewpoint of Academic Micro-Politics[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(4): 552-569.
[4] Selusi Ambrogio. Mou Zongsan and Martin Heidegger: Reopening a Debate on Ontology and Ethics[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(1): 55-71.
[5] Megan Altman. Heidegger on the Struggle for Belongingness and Being at Home[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 444-462.
[6] KE Xiaogang. Reason and Besinnung: Heidegger’s Reflections on Science in Contributions to Philosophy [J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 430-443.
[7] JIN Xiping. Heidegger’s Conception of Being-with (Mitsein ) and His Simple Designation of Social and Political Reality in the Black Notebooks[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 415-429.
[8] Tom Rockmore. Marx and the Transition Problem[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(3): 342-349.
[9] Ralph Weber. Why Talk about Chinese Metaphysics?[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2013, 8(1): 99-119.
[10] BAO Limin. “Justice Is Happiness”?— An Analysis of Plato’s Strategies in Response to Challenges from the Sophists[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2011, 6(2): 258-272.
[11] HU Zhihong. The obscuration and rediscovery of the original Confucian thought of moral politics: Deciphering work on the Guodian, Shangbo and the transmitted versions of Ziyi[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2008, 3(4): 535-557.
[12] ZHAO Tingyang. The self and the other: An unanswered question in Confucian theory[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2008, 3(2): 163-176.
[13] Dongfang Shuo, Lin Hongcheng. Separation of politics and morality: a commentary on Analects of Confucius[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2006, 1(3): 401-417.
Full text