In this paper, we argued on the relationship between Dasein and Subjekt. Dasein is the essential concept in Heidegger’s philosophy, and the name of the master, who understand Sein. Subjekt is the essential concept in the history of Western philosophy, and the name of the master, who recognize beings. The relationship between these two concepts became our interest, because Heidegger pointed out, in Being and Time(Sein und Zeit), that there was no argument on the Being(Sein) of Subjekt in the history of Western philosophy.
Even though Heidegger did not point out it, we were planning to argue the relationship between Dasein and Subjekt. We collectively refer to the soul(Seele), ego, subject (Subjekt), reason(Vernunft), self(Ich), spirit(Geist), and consciousness (Bewußt-sein) as Subjekt. All, from the soul to the consciousness, even to Dasein, seem to correspond to the mind among the two aspects of human beings. However, we are only making an assumption, that Dasein or Subjekt actually exist, based on the body.
While understanding and interpreting Western philosophy, we have no doubt about whether Subjekt actually exists, or we have no doubt about whether Dasein actually exists. Perhaps the reason why we cannot escape the prejudice that everyone, whether Subjekt or Dasein, may be human or the master of human activity in recognition of beings and understanding of Being. In this paper, we confirmed that the question of whether it actually exists, and whether it is Dasein or Subjekt, has not yet been resolved.
In this paper, we have confirmed that Dasein and Subjekt can be seen as simply being replaced from the soul to Dasein every time, if not based on Heidegger’s fundamental-onto-logical position and attitude. In other words, Dasein of Heidegger’s philosophy appears to be not different from the consciousness of Husserl’s philosophy or to be asymptotic a little deeper as a source. However, based on Heidegger’s fundamental-ontological position and attitude, we have confirmed in this paper that Dasein of understanding Being may not simply replace Subjekt of recognizing beings.
According to Heidegger, it seems that it may be the source of Subjekt in that Dasein establishes its own actual existence while understanding Being. In this case, Dasein and Subjekt must be discussed at different levels, so the relationship between Subjekts from the soul to the consciousness and the relationship between Dasein and Subjekt must be distinguished from each other. However, whether based on Heidegger’s fundamental-ontological ontological position and attitude or not, the actual existence of Subjekt and Dasein does not seem to have been clearly confirmed. In this paper, we confirmed that even if the understanding of human or Dasein is a present fact (Faktum), the actual existence of Dasein and Subjekt is not confirmed as long as it is based on metaphysical assumptionsor phenomenological formal notices.
In this paper, we first grasped Dasein, which is the master in understanding of Being in Heidegger’s philosophy, and then Subjekt, which is the master in recognition of beings in the history of Western philosophy, and examined Heidegger’s position and attitude that Dasein precedes Subjekt. The basis for Heidegger’s argument about the precedence of Dasein over Subjekt is ontological difference. It can be Heidegger’s one-sided argument that Dasein precedes Subjektexistential(ontisch), ontological(ontologisch), and existential-ontological(ontisch-ontologisch). Furthermore, in this paper, we confirmed that it is not yet possible to decide prematurely whether the relationship between Subjekt and Dasein is a simple substitution or a deeper substitution, a fundamental relationship, or a derivative relationship.z