A Matter of Significance Stephanie Shi

Heidegger believed the averageness of people is not nothing,1 that it is a positive characteristic. Having this averageness, people are as they are, and whatever they construe and create refer back to themselves.2 However, there are people who may contest his claim, particularly those who find it difficult to see their significancethat of their beingas it is viewed indifferently in its averageness which is often described as a state of mediocrity, not excellent at all. Some exclaim I dont see whats so significant about me. Im just like everybody else or Im not significant. The world will still revolve without me. Theres always someone better. Yet Heidegger wrote that the averageness is something. Perhaps to ground this particular belief of Heidegger and to also lessenshould removal be impossiblecynicism toward it, I ask: In spite of peoples averagenessI use In spite to consider peoples negative connotation of averagenesswhat makes being itself in Heideggers being-in-the-world significant? Before grappling with the question, it is necessary to assume first that being is significant, the adjective I define initially as important and/or rich in effect or in meaning. Being, on the other hand, because its definition has been taken for granted, skewed, and forgotten, has confused some people even if a number are hardly disturbed by the word or at the fact that its meaning has escaped their minds.3 Heidegger went lengths to figure out what being is4 to finally conclude that

Martin Heidegger called the everyday indifference of being averageness. Such everyday indifference or averageness, which means to be characterized by a lack of partiality, is necessary in perceiving and dealing with beings in order to let them manifest themselves as themselves to us, so that we may see them as they are initially and for the most part. Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, trans. Joan Stambaugh (Albany: State University of New York Press), 41. 2 Ibid., 27. 3 Ibid., xix. 4 The importance of defining being is not only found in that we ask what it means to be, but also in the effect, particularly how our actions and we ourselves are shaped by our definition. Only when we have defined being are we able to be mindful of how we view and treat others, our surroundings. We cannot let a being be the being that it is if we do not know what being means, if we hastily and carelessly define or impose meaning to it.

it is in time.5 Stambaugh, in her introduction to Heideggers Being and Time, wrote that being is what we are.6 Ontologically, what sets human beings from other animals is the formers concern of and for their being that is absent in the latter.7 Just as each person is uniqueand genetics attests to this8the being of human beings is also apart from each. Generally, that there is a difference leads to each persons place in the world or society, status if one would like to be socialist in perspective. Heidegger used a hammer to illustrate this placeness of things: a hammer consists of metal, stone, wood, and clearly someone put them together, conceptualized the construction and designed the appearance of the object.9 One may be reminded of the assembly line in the period of Industrialization since that did present each employeespersonsrole in the process of production. This must not, however, elevate human beings in that they will fancy themselves entitled hence have power over all other things simply because they piece objects together to form something of use. Each aspect or element is just as essential to yield an object. Another assumption surfaces out of Heideggers statement that only human beings inquire on their being: That people spend and devote time pondering what it means to be to understand more their being implies its importance at least to people themselves. In literature, Hamlet began his soliloquy with To be or not to be in the context of whether or not to kill Claudius or to commit suicide10; the options, the dilemma, and the final choice present Hamlet as himself, in a nutshell a being concerned with his being, a thinking thing. The questioning allowed him to see suicide as a possible action, and that the mystery of the afterlife allowed him, as well as others, to not kill himself. Similarly in the absurdist play Waiting for Godot, the main

It is through time that being can be understood and for being to understand itself. Heidegger claimed that beings are understood in their being as presence; beings are understood considering the present. Ibid., 15, 22. 6 Ibid., xiv. 7 Ibid., 10. 8 Steve Connor, Genetic breakthrough that reveals the differences between humans, The Independent, 23 November 2006 [periodical on-line]; available from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/genetic-breakthrough-that-reveals-the-differences-betweenhumans-425432.html; Internet; accessed 18 August 2012. 9 Heidegger, Being and Time, 66. 10 Alex Newell, The Dramatic Context and Meaning of Hamlets To Be or Not to Be Soliloquy, PMLA 80, no. 1 (March 1965): 38.

characters Didi and Gogo dealt with the question to wait or not wait for Godot to arrive, thought of suicide should Godot not. Having passed the time by conversing and occasionally arguing, sleeping, eating, and so on, they finally agreed to leave and quit waiting; but both do not flinch from their spot in the end. Their actions were pointless considering they did not know what day of the week it was hence could not know when Godot, whose appearance they also did not know, was coming; all activities were merely done in light of making the wait bearable which they themselves forgot precisely what for. The fact of the matter is that in spite of the seemingly pointless actions that do manifest being, they did them anyway. The characters desired to understand both their behavior and what was shaping it. Suffice to say that in relation to Heideggers being-in-the-world, their being which couldnt be grasped completely let them hold on to lifeperhaps another manifestation of its importance. With people, in spite of the assumption and the trust that being is significantwhich suffices for some as they livethe question what makes it so remains to loom on some minds. The surroundings are full of things objectively present; people see these things, what constitute them, and the makers as they are in themselves.11 A shirt marked 100% COTTON; COTTON FROM INDIA; MADE IN CHINA immediately jolts an individual, and these carry him elsewhere as he may realize that child labor is prevalent in China; the shirt must be made by a six-year old boy, the same age as his son whose education he works hard for, future he still worries about. He may go so far as to wonder about the condition of the Chinese lad; how, too, are his parents, the retail company, the government, and so on. He does not think of any other working boy but that particular one who made the shirt he has or may want to have. As stated, the boys condition is pondered on: how he is upon being subjected to work. Such contemplation shows that beings cannot be separated from their being: in this case, the external (environment) affects the intangible internal (being) that possibly manifests itself visually through the objectively present boy.

11

Heidegger, Being and Time, 66.

Beings, being, and reality, to where thoughts ramify, are relevant to the one who has taken those paths of thinking. Relevance is about the use or purpose of things which concern beings that are also things and interact with other things,12 and beings are relevant together with something else because of the structure of reference and/or relation present.13 On the other hand, things are significant in that they are rich in effect and/or meaning, as was earlier defined. The relational character of beings composes signifying 14; it allows people precisely to continuously connect or begin a connection with beings and their being, and from there incorporate them into their lives for whatever reason and to whatever effect. As significance constitutes the structure of the world15 where beings are always as they are; and as the world is viewed through worldly beings that have being and perceive in accordance to their being,16 being is significant. The tag on the shirt in the example has an effect rich enough for the individual to think of a society and the victim of that society; the mans being let him arrive at the connection of beings in this manner; the working boys being drew his being and himself as a working boy into the equation as well, which illustrates that the relational character lets people relate and be related to. Upon such relating, specifically of what were related to each other and how, may come the awareness of what just transpired which may lead people to realize the kind of being they areany negative reaction may cause them to realize the kind of being they want to be inevitably showing that beings signify to themselves: they themselves have meaning and an identity already present, allowing them to interact with other beings; the dynamics of the interaction depends on the kind of being of those involved. Given that the relational character makes being significant, it does not mean that that is the only factor for significance. Certainly different disciplines and fields of study have their own beliefs regarding that what makes things significant. Consequently, the relational character may still not suffice as an answer for those who fail to recognize their significance hence question or
12 13

Ibid., 79. Ibid. 14 Ibid., 81. 15 Ibid., 82. 16 Ibid., 80.

doubt it; however, going back to the first few quoted exclamations in the beginning of this essay, that human beings are like each other in particular ways due to averageness lets them be significant: they are conceivable in one anothers thoughts, may also be reachable physically. The relatability of being allows the individual to be present in someone elses world; significance is manifested thus, not in having the better side of a comparison which is most likely a seeking of distinction rather than of significance. While some things seem more significant than others to particular human beings at certain times, the being and the relational characteristic of those not in the conscious mind do not become non-existent. (Likewise, those who have passed still feel alive and real to us as we are reminded of them through some objects, or as we think of or pine for them.) Beings may blend into the background but that is because they are left on their own to let themselves be themselves as they are.17 It is up to being to reveal itself and beings in its own terms through which significance that has always been present is realized.

17

Ibid., 70.

Bibliography Connor, Steve. Genetic breakthrough that reveals the differences between humans. The Independent, November 23, 2006. Accessed August 18, 2012. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/genetic-breakthrough-that-reveals-thedifferences-between-humans-425432.html. Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. Translated by Joan Stambaugh. Albany: State University of New York Press. Newell, Alex. The Dramatic Context and Meaning of Hamlets To Be or Not to Be Soliloquy. PLMA 80 (1965): 38-50.