Changed Experience of Time Metaphysics versus Hermeneutics

Lengyel Zsuzsanna
PhD candiadate in Philosophy
Etvs Lrnd University of Budapest, Faculty of Arts,
Doctoral School of Philosophy

Introduction
i!e, as conditio humana, is a funda!ental characteristic feature of the hu!an state
of "ein#$ %t is one of the basic, best-known and at the sa!e ti!e, most enigmatic
events of our life$ At first si#ht it !ay see! "orin# and unintristin#, yet it is the
e&perience 'hose !ystery #ets the philosphical tradition to !a(e conceptual efforts
a#ain and a#ain$ Fro! the "e#innin#, the concept of ti!e has "een characteri)ed "y
t'ofold optics, the reason of 'hich is that *there is no spontaneous desire for ti!e+
,
,
says -hislain Lafont, a French theolo#ian of the ./th century$ %n fact, there is a (ind
of #eneral resistance to the reflection on the funda!ental aspects of "ein# fro! a
hu!an di!ension$ hus, 'hoever 'ants to approach the !ystery of ti!e, should
consider the 0uestion 'hether the usual concept of ti!e 1 'hich considers it o"vious
or a theoretical2speculative (no'led#e holdin# no i!portance to us 1 does not only
refer to our ina"ility to fit in ti!e$
Hermeneutic ays of approaching time
Seein# this difficulty, 3artin 4eide##er, one of the !a5or philosophers of the ./th
century, does not only propose to ans'er the content of the ti!e20uestion, "ut it also
"eco!es i!portant for hi! to 'or( out a philosophical disposition 'hich #ives us
access of e&perience to ti!e$ his !eans the e&a!ination of the aspects, "ased on
'hich 'e #ain e&perience not only a"out a certain thin#, "ut also a"out our
(no'led#e of the thin#$ 6ithout this, there 'ould "e no possi"ility for us to for! an
idea of ti!e itself$
he insi#ht appearin# in 4eide##er7s destruction, later in Lafont7s symbol and in
8icoeur7s metaphor su##ests that not only ti!e as such, "ut also the access to the
ti!e2pheno!enon is a philosophical pro"le! to solve$ his is certainly not a ne' idea
"ut the herita#e of a #reat tradition, since Aristotle7s time-apories in Boo( 9 of
Physics, Au#ustinus7s time-paradox in Boo( ,, of Confessiones and :ant7s
antinomy-theory in his Critique of Pure Reason have #iven #ood e&a!ples of raisin#
this !ethodolo#ical issue$
As different as these vie'points are, they share one thin# in co!!on, that is the
criti0ue of intuitionis! considerin# ti!e as a pri!al #ivenness$ hey reco#ni)e that
the tas(s 'e encounter 'hen tryin# to !a(e the ti!e2pro"le! accessi"le, can7t "e
solved throu#h conte!plation or 'ith the help of optics$ hese approaches e&press in
different 'ays that ti!e can7t "e directly percepti"le, so 'e have to find an indirect
'ay in order to e&perience it; *Die <eitlich(eit 1 'rites 4eide##er 1 ist nie et'as,
'as in einer ="ersch'en#lichen, einer #ehei!nisvollen %ntuition )u schauen '>re,
sondern sie erschlie?t sich nur in einer "esti!!t #earteten "e#rifflichen Ar"eit$@
.
Paul
8icoeur in his literary 'or( entitled Temps et rcit si!ilarly thin(s; *A7 est cette
,
LAFBC .//9, 9D9$p$
.
4E%DE--E8,EFG, 9HG$p$
i!possi"ilitI d7 une phIno!Inolo#ie pure du te!ps 0u7il faudra dI!ontrer@$
J
$
Accordin# to 8icoeur, this 'ould "e an intuitive approach to the ti!e2structure,
'hich, ho'ever, can7t "e separated fro! the ar#u!entative2her!eneutic process, 'ith
the help of 'hich the pheno!enolo#ical thin(in# itself also proposes to solve the
!ystery of ti!e$ he pheno!enolo#ical process 'hich 'ants to represent ti!e itself
atte!pts the i!possi"le$ %t can never "e clearly descri"ed, "ecause the !editation on
ti!e is insepara"le fro! the presence of the discussion a"out it$ %n his !ethodolo#ical
analyses discussin# the as-structure of understandin#, 4eide##er also !a(es it clear
that the her!eneutic vie'point has #reat si#nificance in e&perience; 'e never see
thin#s in their o'n na(ed, o"5ective truth, "ut al'ays understand the! as so!ethin#
Ket'as als et'asL$
9
he ele!entary e&perience is not pure si#ht, either, "ut ori#inally
involves the interpretation2structure$ Approachin# so!ethin# 'ithout the as2structure
e&actly !eans that the co!prehensive si#ht is !issin# and % have !isunderstood
so!ethin#$ 6e !ay as 'ell say that there is no e&perience 'ithout lan#ua#e$ %n the
sa!e 'ay, the ti!e2e&perience also needs interpretation in order to present itself,
"ecause it is never accessi"le 'ithout a her!eneutic effort$ he si#nificance of the
her!eneutic 'or( e&actly lies in the fact that the interpretation itself !a(es up the
field in 'hich the thin# to "e interpreted can appear$ %f ti!e appears only throu#h
interpretation, 'e can say 'ith #ood reason that it first "eco!es an e&perience in this
appearance, so the interpretation is, at the sa!e ti!e, the e&perience of the
interpreted$
Bf course, 4eide##er has no dou"t that the pheno!enality of ti!e 1 presence
itself; in the 'ay of appearin# or coverin# 1 !a(es any her!eneutic interpretation
possi"le$ he pheno!enolo#ical e&perience lets us (no' so!ethin# 1 !a(in# it
possi"le for us to relate to ti!e in a her!eneutic 'ay 1 and #ives us food for thou#ht,
"ut her!eneutics has to reali)e the e&plorin# and interpretin# of its sense$ hus, "y
the #iven e&perience and "y 'hat appears throu#h the #iven, 'e !ean so!ethin# that
'e do not find ready and finished, "ut so!ethin# that 'e !ust turn into the o"5ect of
interpretation, and for the !eanin# 'e have to stru##le 'ith the help of pheno!enon$
o su! up, the spo(en or unspo(en her!eneutic approaches say that 'e cannot
o"serve ti!e in itself$ he pheno!enolo#ical #ist of this e&perience usually "eco!es
accessi"le only in the conte&t of other sy!"ols$ 6e al'ays spea( a"out ti!e in
connection 'ith another, fore!ost 0uestion to "e ans'ered$ As 8icoeur puts it; 'e
learn to read ti!e throu#h these !ediators 1 retrospectively;
G
in theolo#y, for
e&a!ple, in connection 'ith eternity, in philosophy in connection 'ith "ein# or
another person$ his her!eneutic 'or( intends to open the hori)on of !eetin# the
te!porality of our o'n e&istence$ %n this respect, it is 'orth ta(in# a loo( at the
i!portant turnin# points, our ti!e e&perience has #one throu#h$
Metaphysical experience of time
Aontinental philosphy interpretin# the first period of our ti!e consciouness 1 in the
!a5or co!!entatorsM vie' on this topic KAull!ann, -rondind, P##elerL 1 fir!ly
"elieves that our thin(in# has to #et free fro! the "onds of ti!e$ i!e and historicity
appear as difficulty or !erely a ne#ative 'hich 'e should overco!e$ Accordin# to
4eide##er, in this ne#ation 'e can reco#ni)e the "asic !ove!ent of classical
!etaphysics$ he conception #oes "ac( to the ancient ti!es to Plato7s Timaios, 'here
J
8%ABEU8 ,EDJ2,EDG, %$ ,GH$pp$
9
4E%DE--E8 ,EEJ, .//,, J.$N$
G
8%ABEU8 ,EDJ2,EDG, !, ,J,$p$
ti!e appears as *the !ovin# picture of eternity+$
H
his interpretation of "ein#,
accordin# to 'hich ti!e is 5ust a sheer vision, the illusion of reality, has left its !ar(
on Aontinental thin(in#$ Plato7s turnin# to ideas, 'hich involved the underratin# of
arisin# and passin# thin#s, has esta"lished a tradition$ After this, the !ainstrea! of
philosophy did not attach real i!portance to ti!e, 'hat is !ore, interpreted it as an
antipo'er$ i!e appeared as it had "een in close connection 'ith evil$
hat is 'hy, -ree( philosophers approached ti!e fro! the perspective of death
and interpreted it as a loss of "ein#$
F
his !etaphysical approach 'as a"le to "uild a
'orld concept "ased on transcendence 'hich endo'ed death 'ith sense and #ave
!an the hope of i!!ortality$
D
After this, the optics of !etaphysics totally i#nored the
positive features of ti!e$ his true not only for the *Platonic 'ay+, "ut also for the
thin(ers 'ho intended to spea( a"out ti!e and history, li(e Bonaventura or 4e#el$
4e#el 'as the first 'ho reacted in an especially sensitive 'ay to the chan#es of
history, ho'ever, (ept on interpretin# ti!e fro! old concepts of the tradition$ 4e
thou#ht that the 'orld of chan#es, that is, the li!ited historical te!poral "ein# is a
*ne#ativity+ 'hose !eanin# lies in ascendin# K"ufhebungL to the ti!eless, and the
historical investi#ations only ai! at enhancin# the ti!eless validity$ %n this approach,
the *place+ of the truth is the concept, the field of lo#ic interpreted as a ti!eless
sphere co!pared to 'hich the historical reality is 5ust an *illusion+$
6hile critici)in# the speculative needs of !etaphysics, 'hich atte!pts to
understand everythin# throu#h concepts, 4eide##er protests a#ainst the fact that
!etaphysics as the theory of (no'led#e i#nores the factical life, and fails to reco#ni)e
its ti!e2e&perience 'hen considers the supre!e "ein# as a sphere "eyond ti!e 'hich
is accessi"le for te!poral "ein#s only throu#h o"servin# and thin(in#$ he purpose of
!etaphysical (no'in# is the supra2te!poral essence, the co#nition of eternal ideas,
'hose te!porali)in# is secondary$ %n 4eide##er7s opinion, ho'ever, such
transcendentalis! is nothin# !ore than escapin# fro! our o'n te!porality$ After
Plato, Boethius and Ec(hart !aster follo' this 'ay 'hen they spea( a"out e&ceedin#
ti!e on the 'ay of !an7s perfection, and they only use space sy!"olis! to e&press
spiritual e&istence in a positive sense$
E
6hile spatial para!eters Kdepth and hei#ht, for
e&a!pleL 'ere understood as the sta#es of hu!an perfection, they considered ti!e as
an o"stacle of spiritual e&istence rather than a possi"ility, since 'ithin the fra!es of
such an interpretation, the spirit is only a su"5ect to ti!e and chan#e 'hen !eetin# or
havin# lo'er ener#ies$ So, accordin# to 4eide##er, "ein# 'ithout ti!e2e&perince is
*eternal presence+ Knunc stansL$ his !etaphysical ti!e concept, 'hich deter!ined
Aontinental ti!e consciousness for a lon# ti!e, and 'hich Derrida called the
!etaphysics of presence Kmtaphysique de la prsenceL, "eco!es a pro"le! in the
!odern ti!es$

The time!experience of life and existence philosophy
%n fact, it is life and e&istence philosophy K:ir(e#aard, Ber#son, DiltheyL that "e#in to
de!olish the !etaphysical e&perience of ti!e "y #ettin# to the liberation of time
KassertionL fro! the elimination of time Kne#ationL$
:ir(e#aard is the first 'ho, ta(in# ti!e radically seriously, sees the tense duality
of finite and infinite, te!poral and eternal !ovin# to'ards the inner structure of
hu!an e&istence$ 6hile the !etaphysical tradition puts the e!phasis on the
H
Timaios#, JFd KPLAOC ,ED9, JJ9$ pp$L
F
Phaid$n, H9a, KPLAOC ,ED9, ,/J.$ pp$L
D
4E%DE--E8 .//,, 9E$N, .DD$p$, See ASEPE% .//,, G$p$
E
See AULL3ACC .///, 9D$p$
ne#ativity of ti!e2flo', and atte!pts to solve the pro"le! of evil throu#h ti!e and
finitude, :ir(e#aard finds another KAhristolo#icalL 'ay to e&perience and interpret
ti!e$ his approach does not consider ti!e as a loss "ut a possi"ility of e&istence$
Accordin# to :ir(e#aard7s hypothesis, contrary to that of Schellin#7s, the choice
Kfaith or desparationL that deter!ines the direction of e&istence does not occur in a
pre2e&istent state "ut here and no', in the !o!ent of e&istence$ he crucial relation
of !an to eternity, 'hich !eans the "asis of his e&istence, #oes throu#h in ti!e,
providin# that !an hi!self is the synthesis of te!poral and eternal$ :ir(e#aard
intends to *re!ove+ the evil2concept of !etaphysics to the level of personal
e&istence, and to e!phasi)e the *reality of sin+ instead of the speculative *pro"le! of
evil+$ By doin# so, he 'ants to put e!phasis on the i!portance of personal "ein#,
'hich is #iven to !an only throu#h choice$ his 'ay ti!e relates to choice rather
than evil, !a(in# the positi%e symbolism of time accessi"le$ e!porality is no lon#er
5ust a ne#ative 0uality of hu!an "ein# "ut it is a possi"ility of choosin# our o'n
e&istence; a real principium indi%iduationis$ his approach, 'here ti!e appears as the
state of choice for the person, raises different 0uestion fro! the previous one; isn7t it
!an hi!self standin# under the po'er and !ercy of ti!e 'ho, contrary to evil, can
cope 'ith hi!selfQ Ber#son, "y ela"oratin# the e&perienced ti!e Kte!ps vIcuL, 'hich
he called duration, and Dilthey, 'ith his thou#hts reflectin# on historicity, also
deter!ine the e&istential !eanin# of ti!e, 'here the 0uestion of ti!e includes the
0uestion of individuation, that is, the a"ility to "eco!e a su"5ectu!$
he essence of the e&istential ti!e2concepts is that they #ive a constructive
!eanin# to ti!e, they no lon#er deny its i!portance, and pic( the ti!e pheno!enon
out of the neutral field of !etaphysics sho'in# its natural relation to choice and
freedo!, the concept of individual e&istence and su"5ectivity$ hey 0uestion the
episte!olo#ical su"5ectu!2concept, and create the existence-concept of sub&ecti%ity,
'here the su"5ectu! no lon#er ta(es up the position of episte!olo#y "ut has an
e&istential i!portance, thus, instead of (no'in#, it serves "rin#in# into "ein#$ he
!erit of the e&istential ti!e2concepts is that they represent a 'ay of thin(in# 'hich
#oes a#ainst the loss of sub&ectum! hey point out the si#nificance of individual
e&istence, 'here ti!e plays a crucial part in creatin# the su"5ectu!$ All this attached
a positive sense to the finitude of hu!an "ein#, so the te!poral aspect no lon#er
appears as 5ust a ne#ative 0uality "ut it can "e reco#ni)ed as a positive, constitutive
ontholo#ical !otif of our e&istence$ At the sa!e ti!e, accordin# to 4eide##er, these
concepts, 'hich do nothin# !ore than turnin# round the do!inance of duality Kti!e2
eternityL, #ain validity only 'ithin the fra!es of !etaphysical 0uestionin#, and "y
re!ovin# the e!phasis fro! the Platonic ti!eless sphere to the te!poral, they do not
leave the field of !etaphysics$ 6ithin the fra!es of this duality, ho'ever, up#radin#
ti!e and e!phasi)in# the i!portance of its individuali)in# role, involves the fact that
they can do a"solutely nothin# 'ith the relation of ti!e to death, the Platonic, ancient
thanatolo#ical di!ension$
Hermeneutic time!experience
4eide##er, follo'ed :ant, points out that "y the state of !etaphysics 'e should !ean
the dichoto!ic structure of thin(in#$ his, as 'ell as in ter!s of ti!e, !eans that
there are t'o opposin# perspectives in tradition fro! the "e#innin#$
er!inolo#ically, 'e can call the! cosmological and psychological, or ob&ecti%e
and sub&ecti%e concepts of ti!e$ 6hile the for!er KAristotle, PlatoL deter!ines the
ti!e of natural processes throu#h the !ove!ents in the universe, the latter
KAu#ustinus, :ir(e#aard, Ber#son, DiltheyL deals 'ith the ti!e of the spirit$ %n
accordance 'ith this, the classical philosophy as(s 'hether ti!e is o"5ective or
su"5ective$ his 0uestion, in 4eide##er7s opinion, results in only alternative ans'ers
'hich are not a"le to stop each other, 'hat is !ore, they tend to reproduce each
other$
,/
%t is all the sa!e, 'hether 'e 'ant to approach to ti!e o"5ectively or
su"5ectively, "ecause "oth leads to the o"5ectivi)ation of our ti!e2e&perience, thus,
'e should see "eyond this traditional dichoto!y instead$ he essence of 4eide##er7s
her!eneutic disposition is that it atte!pts to #ive such access to the ti!e2e&perience
in 'hich the o"5ective2su"5ective opposition see! to "eco!e insecure$ he !erit of
this critical investi#ation is that it calls for a (ind of !eta2attitude$ Since the
o"5ective2su"5ective ti!e, the dichoto!y "et'een the t'o or the do!inance of one or
the other only !atters 'ithin the fra!es of !etaphysics, neither the cos!olo#ical nor
the psycholo#ical ti!e2concept is a"le to "rea( throu#h the "oundaries of this !odel$
%n the case of opposin# aspects, 'here the inner coherence of the vie'points is
inevita"le, 'e can ta(e radical steps ahead only if 'e 0uestion the sources of the
de"ate "y sho'in# the co!!on hypothesis of "oth vie'points$ 6e can #o "eyond
the collision only 'ith a critical approach si#nifyin# the !otivational "asis of the
vie'points$ hus, the 4eide#erian criticis! is not an o"5ection 'hich !oves 'ithin
the !etaphysical 'ay of puttin# a 0uestion, or 'hich denies or sho' counter proofs
for the sa(e of a ne' solution "ut it focuses on the ela"oration of a !eta2vie'point
'hich has so!ethin# i!portant to say a"out the "irth of this 0uestionin#$ So, this
ar#u!entation does not re5ect the traditional concept "ut sho's 'hat !a(es it
possi"le$ %t does not as( 'ith 'hich ar#u!ents this or that ans'er can "e proved "ut
on 'hat conditions such pro"le!s can "e "orn$ 6ith this, 4eide##er chan#es the 'ay
in 'hich the ti!e2pro"le! is for!ulated and ans'ered$ %n this respect, !an stru##lin#
in the net of alternatives can raise his ti!e consciousness to an upper level not 'ith
the alternatives of ans'ers "ut 'ith the help of 0uestionin# the !otivations and
possi"ility2conditions of the dichoto!ic 'ay 'hich is so typical of !etaphysics$ 6e
can ar#ue endlessly for ti!e "ein# o"5ective or su"5ective 'ith si!irarly stron# and
convincin# ar#u!ents, "ut the !etaphysical yesRno 0uestion can only lead to the
reduction of the ti!e2pro"le! rather than to a solution$ %t illustrates the
o"5ectivi)ation of ti!e$
Accordin# to 4eide##er, ho'ever, our thin(in# a"out ti!e cannot follo' the sa!e
'ay as ho' 'e create consciousness a"out o"5ects$ %n this case 'e cannot thin( of
anythin# o"5ect2li(e$ i!e analyses do not !ove 'ithin the o"5ect2su"5ect fra!e$ he
4eide##erian use of lan#ua#e !a(es it avoida"le that 'e co!prehend the ti!e
pheno!enon as the counterpole of su"5ectu!, so!e (ind of o"5ective ti!e2flo'$ i!e
cannot appear in the for! of an o"5ect2li(e conception, "ecause it is not one of the
o"5ects "ut so!ethin# that already operates in all o"5ect2e&perience$ he tas( of the
her!eneutic approach is nothin# !ore than "rin#in# "ac( the di!ensions that
refle&ion2philosophy thre' a'ay, e&pandin# it to the di!ensions 'hich have to
re!ain invisi"le in the perspective of refle&ion2philosohy so that the philosophy a"out
ti!e, as the o"5ect of investi#ation can "eco!e possi"le$ 4eide##er7s funda!ental
understandin# is that the her!eneutic pheno!enolo#y of ti!e does not e&a!ine
o"5ects or su"5ects "ut pheno!ena$ i!e2e&perience does not appear as the *o"5ect+
of the investi#ation, as the o"5ective or su"5ective pole of e&perience "ut it appears in
its o'n pheno!enality 'ithout "ein# an o"5ect2li(e conception opposin# !an or a
su"5ective consciousness$ he interpretation of ti!e as a pheno!enon refers to the
fact that the 4eide##erian investi#ation does not follo' an o"5ective 'ay of puttin#
,/
4E%DE--E8 ,EFG, JGE$p$S JH,$p$
0uestions$
,,
So, there is a the!ati)ation of ti!e 'hich does not "eco!e su"5ective or
o"5ective, 5ust understood in its o'n e&perience$
he 4eide##erian ti!e analyses the!selves are also "ipolar$ 4ere, 'e also have an
i!personal ti!e2level 'hich is independent fro! us and the personal te!porality of
our o'n e&istence, ho'ever, the t'o ti!e2levels are not stron#ly separated "ut they
have an interdependent relation$ he 4eide#erian the!ati)ation leads to the 0uestion
ho' the physical and the spiritual ti!e connect to each other, that is, he 0uestion of
the historicity K'eschichtlichkeitL of hu!an e&istence$ 4istoricity so!eho' includes
the duality of the ti!e2e&tasies of e&istence K(eitlichkeitL and the related hori)on
KTemporalit)tL, "ut it is not the sa!e as the duality of o"5ective and su"5ective ti!e$
6e have to thin( at a different level here$ he t'o differences are not e0ual "ut one is
the other7s possi"ility condition$ i!e is not o"5ective or su"5ective in this respect "ut
it is "oth at the sa!e ti!e, as lon# as it "elon#s to hu!an e&istence itself$
*<eitlich(eit+ and *e!poralit>t+ is such a dina!ic unity in historicity 'hich !a(es
the e!er#e of different aspects possi"le$
Althou#h "y chan#in# the o"5ective2su"5ective sides of the traditional 'ay "oth
naturalis! and psycholo#is! can "e avoided, co!pared to these alternatives
4eide##er7s vie'point is not *neutral+ "ut in a certain respect *su"5ective+ "ecause it
starts fro! "ein# here, the su"5ectu! of "ein# in the 'orld$ his, ho'ever, is not the
sa!e as the psycholo#is! of su"5ectu!2!etaphysics, the psycholo#ical su"5ectivity
accordin# to 'hich ti!e is 5ust a su"5ective !ind2act$ 6hat should 'e !ean "y this
su"5ectivity of ti!e2e&perienceQ 4eide##er says that if 'e 'ant to li"erate thin(in#
fro! the vicious circle of opposin# vie'points, 'e have to redirect the 0uestion
radically to the as(in# person$ i!e, in this for!, "elon#s to the hu!an e&istence
itself$ 6hile the refle&ive approach is "ased on the hypothesis that it is a"le to step
out of the sense2happenin# trans!itted "y the ti!e2e&perience chosen as its o"5ect,
accordin# to 4eide##er, philosophy discovers ti!e only if co!prehend itself as a part
of it, if the !editation a"out ti!e ta(es into account the te!porality of its o'n
!editation$ 6e can only protect our ti!e2e&perience fro! the thin#2li(e
o"5ectivi)ation if 'e don7t approach it throu#h a refle&ive 'ay, in the fra!es of a
Ksu"5ective2o"5ective typeL thin#2ontholo#y$ he her!eneutic prere0uisits of
understandin# are fulfilled e&actly 'hen 'e do not reflect ourselves out of ti!e$ Tet,
it is not the crucial thin# that 'hether 'e e&it the circle of the te!porality "ut 'hether
'e enter properly, since the positive possi"ility of (no'in# e&istence is hidin# there$
hus, fro! a her!eneutic respect, the follo'in# addition offers itself ; if 'e
understand the 0uestion 'ell, its earlier sense, the sta(e of the pro"le! chan#es, too$
i!e no lon#er appears in itself "ut in the perspective of for us$ he 0uestion 'ill no
lon#er apply to the ti!e20uestion in #eneral "ut to the sense of ti!e$ So, 4eide##er
clai!s in his lecture entitled The Concept of Time in ,E.9 that 'e cannot as( ; *6hat
is ti!eQ+ in itself, instead 'e should as(; *A! % !y o'n ti!eQ+
,.
Fro! 4eide##er7s her!eneutic perspective three funda!ental !eanin#2layers of
the ti!e2concept unfold$ ,$ For the o"5ective2su"5ective ti!e2concepts, ti!e appeared
in the fra!e of o"5ect2e&perience, "elon#in# to identifia"le ti!e processes$ But if,
accordin# to 4eide##er, 'e ta(e a loo( at the pheno!enolo#ical feature of ti!e, 'e
can discover t'o !ore aspects; the e&istence in time and the temporality of "ein#$ .$
First of all, 4eide##er sheds li#ht on the fact that if 'e do not only consider ti!e in an
a"stract 'ay "ut 'e !ean an e&istential event, pro5ectin# it on our o'n e&istence,
'ith an attitude leadin# to life, then the 0uestion arises 'hat the existence in time
,,
4E%DE--E8 ,EEJ, 9,E$pp$S id$ .//,, 9D/$pp$
,.
4E%DE--E8 ,EE., G,$p$
!eans fro! the hu!an perspective$ %t is at this individually sensitive level, 'here the
a"ility to e&ist, the self2identity is at sta(e, that 4eide##er ela"orates his 'ell2(no'n
thanatolo#ical concept$ 4e intends to e&plore the possi"le 'ays of authentic ti!e2
e&perience, 'hich opens the 'ay to self2"ein# K*elbstL$ %n his opinion, the authentic
ti!e, 'hich is a"le to offer ne' possi"ilities of !an7s self2interpretations, is only
accessi"le throu#h understandin# !an7s li!its, that is, the e&perience of finiteness$
he possi"ility of accessin# ti!e depends e&actly on the de#ree at 'hich !an is a"le
to relate to death, and this is 'hat deter!ines his possi"ility of "ein# hi!self$
J$ For 4eide##er, ti!e is a (ey2concept of "oth his hu!an conception and his
entire e&istence conception$ hrou#h the pro"le! of te!porality, he investi#ates the
fact that the process of the develop!ent of selfidentity, its !odification in ti!e does
not e&plain in itself the corestructure and its for!ation$ he 0uestion of the
constitution of su"5ectivity isnMt sa!e as the pro"le! of the ori#in constitutin#
su"5ectivity$ %f it is not !an 'ho creates the te!porality of e&istence "ut is already
placed in this te!porality, there should "e a di!ension of ti!e 'hich is the possi"ility
condition of the concrete facticity$ 4eide##er calls ti!e te!porality KTemporalit)tL in
the function 'here it is not only the co!ponent of the actual su"5ectu! "ut the
*"asis+ of the su"5ectivity2creation of hu!an su"5ectivity, *the apriori of real
su"5ectivity+$
,J
All this !a(es it clear that the ti!e2pro"le! e&ceeds the "oundaries of
the individuation2pro"le!, and the 0uestion here is ho' the ontholo#ical Kor
!etaphysicalL di!ension, 'here the 0uestions of the relation of hu!an su"5ectivity to
the 'orld and others arise, can "e clarified$ %n other 'ords, the 4eide##erian
te!porality concept e&presses that it is not enou#h to e&plore the 0uestion of ti!e on
the level of the su"5ectivity2the!e; it cannot ela"orate the sense of "ein# only throu#h
the te!porality of e&istence$ For this, 'e also need a ti!e2concept 'hich is
constituated not only "y the sense2conte&ts carried "y !an, 'hich is no lon#er 5ust a
result of an7s achieve!ents, the *productivity of the su"5ectu!+, "ut 'hich puts the
0uestion of an ori#inal e&istence2state of e&perience$ 6ith the 0uestion of te!porality
'e have actually reached the level of transcendence-problem, 'ith the help of 'hich
4eide##er atte!pts to reach the heart of the sche!atic pro"le!$ he sche!atis! of
te!porality see(s for the ans'er to the transcendenc2pro"le!$ racin# "ac( to
sche!atis! does not !ean fallin# "ac( into the psycholo#is! of su"5ectu!2
!etaphysics, it is not at all a"out the inner, !ental sphere of the su"5ectu!$ 4eide##er
is a'are that it does not offer a fulfillin# solution if all thin(a"le sense "elon#s to the
circle of su"5ectivity$ 4e says that 'e have to sho' so!eho' that the 0uestion of
ti!e e&ceeds the continuous ar#u!entation ori#inatin# fro! the hu!an source$ %f
,ho'ever, ti!e has priority over the o"5ective2su"5ective differentiation, the central
0uestion arises ho' the philosopher7s 0uestion can lead it out of the circle of
su"5ectivity as lon# as he loo(s for the transcendental possi"ility conditions of
o"5ectivity and su"5ectivity$ Aan ti!e, as te!porality play the role of the ulti!ate
perspectiveQ
4eide##er7s !ain pro"le! is that even if there is such a possi"le concept of ti!e,
it cannot "e (no'n$ he hori)ontal sche!es that "elon# to the ti!e2e&tasies of
e&istence are no lon#er #ivenness "ecause there is no such a layer of e&perience in
'hich they can "e e&perienced$ %n a strict sense, ti!e as te!porality is no lon#er a
pheno!enon "ut the condition of the pheno!ena 'hich is not accessi"le directly and
in itself, yet, it appears so!eho'$ e!poral sche!es are directly not accessi"le, 'e
can only #ain (no'led#e a"out the! throu#h their effect on us$ Althou#h they
contri"ute constitutively to the pheno!enali)ation of every pheno!enon, they do not
,J
4E%DE--E8 .//,, ,GEp$, .HH pp$, GDp$ See id$ ,EEJ, ,J,p$, ..E p$, 9, p$
fit in the pheno!enal sphere, this is 'hy, they can no lon#er pheno!enali)ed in
the!selves$ After all, 4eide##er couldn7t connect the te!poral sche!es to concrete
e&perience$ %n this ulti!ate di!ension of ti!e, 4eide##er7s entire her!eneutic
pheno!enolo#y is auto!atically for!ed$ %t re!ains unans'ered ho' the sche!es
'hich deter!ine our e&perience can "eco!e a part of an e&perience2analysis$ %t is still
unclear ho' the !o!entu! of sche!ati)ation can "e e&pressed "y e&perience$
Conclusion
hus, 4eide##er7s ti!e2analyses, si!irarly to those of :ant7s, pointed out that ti!e
'ill al'ays re!ain a challen#e to philosophy$ Althou#h 'e have to put the 0uestion
ai!in# at the te!poral sense, !eanin# and purpose of "ein# in a practical and !oral
sense, 'e cannot #ive an ulti!ate, 'ell2esta"lished ans'e as a philosopher or a
scientist$ %n a philosophical sense the ti!e2pro"le! has no solution, 5ust sense$
Philosophy cannot offer a positive result in this 'ay, its essence lies in its stru##le to
rethin( thin#s carefully and to !a(e the! !ore co!plicated$
"eferences
U,V -hislain Lafont K.//9L; " katolikus egyh+# teol$giat,rtnete$ ford$ 3rtonffy
3arcell, Atlantis), Budapest$
U.V 4eide##er K,EFGL; -ie 'rundprobleme der Ph)nomenologie$ 4rs#$; F$26$ von
4err!ann, :loster!ann, Fran(furt a! 3ain$
UJV Paul 8icoeur K,EDJ2,EDGL; Temps et rcit$ -! Points, Wditions du Seuil$
U9V 4eide##er K.//,L; .t s id/! ford$ Xa5da 3ihly, An#yalosi -er#ely, Bacs
BIla, :ardos Andrs, Bros) %stvn, Bsiris, Budapest
UGV Platn K,ED9L; Timaios#, ford$ :vendi DInes, in; Plat$n ,ss#es m0%ei, J$$,
Eurpa, Budapest$
UHV Platn K,ED9L; Phaid$n, ford$ :erInyi -rcia, in; Plat$n ,ss#es m0%ei, ,$,
Eurpa, Budapest$
UFV Ase5tei De)sY K.//,L; " hal+l hermeneutik+&a, Xes)prI!i 4u!n
udo!nyo(Irt AlapZtvny, Xes)prI!$
UDV Bscar Aull!ann K.///L; 1ris#tus s a# id/2 "# /skeres#tnysg id/- s
trs#emllete, 4er!eneuti(ai :utat()pont, Budapest$
UEV 4eide##er K,EEJL; *ein und (eit, Cie!eyer, ="in#en$
U,/V 4eide##er K,EE.L; "# id/ fogalma$ " nmet egyetem ,nmegnyilatko#+sa$ "
rektor+tus 3455657 Kford$ FehIr 3$ %stvnL :ossuth, Budapest$