Being, Time, and Living an Authentic Life

In Being in Time, philosopher Martin Heidegger writes about existence, being in the world, and living an authentic life. In this essay, I will first assess Heidegger’s writings and arguments about Dasein, Being-in-the-world, Being-toward-death, and the “They”. I will analyze Heidegger’s notions of how to live an authentic life, and will raise objections and present explanations around desires in evolutionary biology. I will posit the question—even if people do live authentically as Heidegger says, are they not still biologically programmed to live a very specific way chasing limited, unchangeable desires? Ultimately, I will argue that Heidegger is successful in describing a framework in which one can break out of the “They” and live a more authentic life, but only insofar as one realizes that one can only be the secondary author of one’s life.

It is essential to first explain Heidegger’s terminology to understand his take on authenticity, and Dasein is the key to start. Dasein is defined as being there, existing, and really describes individual humans’ experience and the distinctive situations we are in. We humans are beings that both are and becoming in relation to the world (BT 60). Dasein is important because it is a stark contrast to traditional philosophy’s subject-object terminology, and focuses more on the experience, mood, and being in time.

According to Heidegger, we are “thrown” into being in the world in which our surroundings, background, and past shape our identities (BT 127). In this respect, Dasein is passive and has unavoidable inauthenticity in this sense, but to accept this without second thought is to continue to live inauthentically (BT 41). Heidegger believes that anxiety reveals our possibilities—that we have a potentiality for being some other kind of being than the one we currently are (BT 171). Anxiety is recognition that we are free to choose ourselves (BT 172). Dasein lives constantly projecting into the future, so thinking critically about what one is capable of and how our identities are shaped by our reality is important. However, Heidegger believes that we humans don’t do this and our everyday lives are instead characterized by “falling” away from the self into the “They” (BT 126). Instead of being authentic and taking hold of oneself in one’s own way, being in the They is living with one’s individuality completely dispersed. We are anxious in the face of our own potential authenticity and instead find ways to disburden and distract ourselves, thus we constantly live in fear and ignorance, which is an inauthentic existence (BT 173).

This living in the They is characterized by the average everydayness in the world that we see—idle chatter, constantly needing to feel entertained, staying busy, and following the crowd (BT 47). This existence has been particularly exacerbated in modern times with the advent of mobile devices and social media. This superficiality significantly limits one from thinking critically and existing in the world genuinely. Most importantly, this sort of being obscures possible other ways of being and limits one’s freedom (BT 175).

The second division of Being and Time is about continuing the hermeneutic arc in the light of the question of temporality. Here, Heidegger turns to the question of mortality, which is important because death is the principal boundary of Dasein’s temporality (BT 234). Heidegger believes that death is what defines our time and individuality in life and makes it whole, rather than infinite (BT 250). Death is incredibly important and unique in terms of Dasein, because it is deeply personal as one can only die for oneself, and has no prior understanding of not existing (BT 234). One’s death is not an empirical event, but is literally not experiencing and being in the world while the world continues to exist (BT 235).

Heidegger argues that authentic Being-toward-death, as he calls it, is understanding one's individual death as always already a part of being (BT 241). Realizing the nature of one’s finitude calls Dasein’s individual self out of it’s “They-self”, frees it to reevaluate life, and opens itself up for anxiety (BT 253). Heidegger thinks that through the “call of conscience,” which Heidegger defines as a summoning from the self reminding us of our responsibility, one is pulled away from the They and into an authentic understanding of being (BT 249). Overall, an authentic Being-toward-death, as Heidegger defines, understands the indeterminate nature of their own inevitable death, and does not put off death to some distant, futural thing, but comes to terms with it as being (248).

In Heidegger’s view, the majority of human beings lead a life that is inauthentic. Rather than facing and accepting their own facticity (something that already informs and has been taken up in existence) and death, they escape into distraction and fall into the They of mindless groupthink (BT 52). In effect, they do not own their choices and are not the authors of their own lives—this existence is inauthentic. To live authentically, one must have a personal transformation and move from the They-self to the I-self. If one lives an authentic life, one recognizes and avoids falling into the They, which frees oneself to become an individual Being-in-the-world, as Heidegger calls it, who can think critically and exist with greater potentialities (BT 183).

Heidegger has a strong argument in presenting a simple framework to understand facticity, falling into the They, understanding death, and being aware of one’s being. That being said, I believe he falls short in adequately describing what it means to practically be more authentic and individualistic. The proposition of limited desires in materialism and evolutionary biology raises many deep questions into the practicality of Heidegger’s view of authenticity. I agree with Heidegger that one can realize that one is an individual being and can critically think about their facticity, temporality, and potentiality—one can effectively stop falling into the They. But one cannot really escape the desires found in every human being based on survival and evolution, and in effect are still not the authors of their lives.

It is necessary to prelude this objection by stating that I will strictly follow the position of materialism. For living things, specifically animals and humans, this takes shape by billions of cells and neurons, forming complex organisms that perceive and feel the environment to effectively survive.

Living things only have one core desire—gene survival. By evolution, animals adapt in response to changes in the environment through the trial-and-error process of natural selection for random mutations. Evolution has been occurring for billions of years, and has resulted in diverse animals with specific survival mechanisms, or desires. Humans, like any other animal, have a specific set of desires and predispositions, which all lead back to individual survival and reproduction.

While this may not be poetic in the same way Heidegger is, we humans are biologically constrained to limited unchangeable desires, motivations, and predispositions. All these desires exist because they are gene survival mechanisms ingrained in humans’ DNA (e.g. humans naturally desire to have sex, and this is an uncontrollable desire). From a neuroscience standpoint, this works by positive neurotransmitters firing and hormones releasing when one desire is fulfilled. So, humans live their lives doing all these things, which are ultimately to get chemical satisfaction, which is ultimately to survive.

For example, we humans naturally have a desire to outcompete others and we all want to receive recognition for being better. This desire exists because showing to others that your genes are the “fittest” will result in a better mate, which is good for gene survival. Spending time with friends is also good for gene survival because you are more likely to stay alive with a group of humans you like and trust rather than either being alone or being with humans you don’t like or trust. When one makes art, the ultimate reason is so that someone else can see it and hopefully like it. It is theorized that these trinkets and crafts are exactly the same as mating calls seen in countless animals, and for humans this is no different.

Exercise releases endorphins and other chemicals, which are in place to reward an animal for being active and mobile (to hunt and forage), which leads to higher survivability. This mechanism is in place because our ancestors who didn’t have it died and couldn’t pass on the trait, while the ones who got rewarded for being more active survived and passed it along. Also today, one wants to exercise because it will result in them physically looking fitter, which is good for reproduction. Being lazy and sleepy can also be explained because rest is important to survival, and exerting too much energy can lead to low survival because you need more food as a result. Worshipping gods can be explained because humans want to survive and this meme, or idea, offers a path, real or not, to literally survive forever. Even my desire to figure out the truth in philosophy comes from the desire to understand and observe our world to survive. All desires can be traced back to survival and are fundamentally predisposed. If one pursues a desire that is not a predisposed one, it doesn’t even make sense to us humans, and we would call them crazy. For example, one such desire is licking every individual blade of grass in a park. Nobody does it because it cannot be traced back to any gene survival mechanism and hence doesn’t give you any positive chemicals.

This is extremely important in the context of understanding being and authenticity because in many ways, you are the slave to your genes, with uncontrollable predispositions and desires. When Heidegger presents his framework to escaping the They and understanding Being, he is arguing that this will lead to more potentialities in one’s being and give one more freedom. But the problem is that this is only to a certain extent because one is always trapped by the biological constraints of survival and evolution. How authentic can one be if the only way one can live is to live by these uncontrollable desires? Since our actions are governed by our desires, one could argue that we literally cannot act in a way that is ultimately unrelated from survival. There are a lot of possible things we could do but we literally cannot imagine them because they don’t make sense in terms of survival. In effect, we have a very specific way of living and our total potentialities are very limited.

It is impossible to conquer, or not have, these desires. For example, overeating is based on the survival mechanism to eat as much as you can. This is because 100,000 years ago in human history and for essentially all of life history, food has been extremely scarce and one had to exert a lot of energy for each meal. Now, overeating is looked down upon because one can get overweight. But choosing not to overeat is not “conquering” one’s own desires. One only wants to not overeat because one wants to look more fit in society, which is based on attracting a mate and having a high chance of gene survival. So in effect, one is really just choosing one desire, or gene survival mechanism, over another.

We can still make choices in life. But these choices are only between two already predisposed, unchangeable desires. The only way one can choose in being is when one predisposed desire conflicts with another. Do I choose the expensive Tesla or the affordable car? (The expensive car will impress others and help me prove that my genes are fitter, but its cost could reduce my savings money, which I need to survive well.) Do I finish this essay or do I go take a nap? (Finishing this essay will be good for my grade, help me graduate, and eventually get me more money so I can survive well, but it is quite taxing and is very energy demanding, which traditionally would not be good for my survival.) Do I go on vacation or take summer classes? (Going on vacation would be stimulating to my curiosity, which is based on better understanding the world to survive, but summer classes would help me graduate quicker, which will get me money, which will increase my chances of survival.)

Heidegger argues that we are authentic when we are cognizant of the influence of facticity and decide for ourselves whether to go along with it or not. But in reality, we are trapped into only acting from these limited survival mechanisms and cannot really escape this. Heidegger wants us to be a person of a particular sort instead of being true to some antecedently given nature, but in practice, one can only escape so far. It seems that even as an individual, one can be aware of these facticities but one cannot act much differently in reality because one cannot change or stop one’s programmed desires.

Even if you try to fight your desires, it is only because of the fact that one naturally desires to feel free, which can be directed back towards being active and mobile to survive (animals don’t usually like to be locked in cages). Even if one falls into nihilism, one still has their predisposed desires. In many respects, one is like a character in a video game, where they are trapped to do everything that they do. Maybe realizing all this facticity makes one more curious about the world, and it certainly unlocks increased critical thinking (existential crisis, depression, transformation into thinking more away from the They as Heidegger says). But if you are programmed to be authentic, and if you are programmed to want freedom, how free are you? One cannot be truly authentic if one cannot act much differently in reality.

While these objections are valid, and Heidegger casts a broad brush in his terminology and framework, he is correct in many aspects and is really ahead of the curve in talking about the prominence of the “They” and about understanding death as an aspect of being. Heidegger would argue that his framework is much simpler than all this, and just allows one to escape the They and think about how one is constrained by their facticity. Heidegger is absolutely right in the sense that most people are not aware of their own being. People go from one task to the other, all blindly at the whims of their facticity and fear, and are rarely with themselves as individuals. People rarely take time to realize the reality (and absurdity) of existing and being in time. This leads to people living inauthentically, which is a shame because they are ceding away their existence.

In terms of the new information about all desires being unchangeable, uncontrollable, limited, and based on survival mechanisms, Heidegger would say living authentically means understanding all of this information to better realize one’s being. Heidegger does concede that some inauthenticity is unavoidable, but those who really think critically about their existential being will be more able to choose their own identities. Because we have established that one can only live within these predisposed desires and actions, one can only choose from identities which have basis in gene survival mechanisms. So, one can technically have greater potentialities, but ultimately in a limited way.

One cannot be the primary author of their life, but they can be the secondary author. One is just like a character in a video game or simulation. One wouldn’t call a conscious character in a virtual world the author of their life, when we know that they live by the game’s programming constraints, so neither should we. The character doesn’t know anything outside of their game and is completely restrained to follow a narrow way of being, so it would be false to say that they have true individuality and authenticity. But they do have secondary authorship because they can, to some extent, choose which predisposed desires to prioritize and follow.

In being authentic, it is crucial that one must also understand and come to terms with all of these biological predispositions of being. One must study evolution and survival, and realize that we are controlled by our genes. To Heidegger, this is the extremely encompassing facticity that we are thrown into. If left unnoticed or unattended, we fail to truly understand our existence. Not only must we come to terms with the anxiety of our potentialities and the temporality of our existence, but also with this newfound information that we humans are completely controlled by desires that we cannot fight or change. We must accept that we do have existence and have a relationship with the world, but are completely limited and controlled in being. We must accept that we are programmed to have narrow desires and actions, and understand that we are only the secondary authors of our lives.

This is easier said than done. Just as Heidegger says with death, this is not an abstract concept to ponder and then leave to forget. Nor is it something that’s just “fun to think about”. This realization changes everything because it literally defines our being and existence in the world. It is deeply personal, and arguably more shocking than understanding one’s own death. You are not the primary author of your life, and are constantly on a quest for chemical satisfaction, which are based on survival mechanisms. You cannot change this, and also know nothing outside of a narrow way of being. Full awareness and acceptance can only be achieved through an existential crisis that profoundly changes one’s perspective and being.

Once this greater authenticity is achieved, one can better understand being in the world. One can have new experiences within these desires. One can escape falling into the They and think critically for oneself. One can learn and grow in being. And one can compose one’s own autobiography as a secondary author that continues until death.

In this paper I have argued that Heidegger provides a convincing framework in understanding being, death, anxiety, and falling into the They. One can reject the They and live a more authentic existence, but cannot escape from predisposed desires and actions as a result of survival mechanisms. That being said, understanding and accepting all these facticities and elements of being gives one greater awareness and greater potentiality within the world of predisposed desires, allowing one to become one’s own secondary author in being.