u/Comprehensive_Ad6061

I’ve been thinking about a methodological question in Being and Time, and I’d like to know whether anyone has discussed it.
I understand that Heidegger is not making an ethical distinction between “authentic” and “inauthentic” people. Authenticity is an existential possibility built into the structure of Dasein, not a permanent state that some people possess and others don’t. He repeatedly insists that Dasein never simply leaves das Man behind.
My question is different.
Heidegger gives extraordinarily rich phenomenological descriptions of anxiety (Angst), the call of conscience, Unheimlichkeit, and resoluteness. These passages don’t read like abstract deductions; they read like descriptions of phenomena that are somehow familiar to the one describing them.
This makes me wonder: where does the authority of these descriptions come from?
If Being and Time is an ontological analysis rather than an ontic one, how can Heidegger describe these phenomena with such precision without presupposing some existential familiarity with them?
Part of why this question occurred to me is the contrast with Sartre. In Nausea, something very close to Heideggerian anxiety is presented as an explicitly lived, ontic experience through Roquentin. There, the source of the description is obvious. Heidegger, however, wants to remain at the ontological level.
So I wonder whether there is a kind of methodological tension here.
Heidegger seems careful to avoid creating an existential hierarchy between “those who have seen” and “those who haven’t.” Yet the very voice of Being and Time sometimes feels as though it speaks from someone who has already been existentially touched by what he is describing.
I’m not claiming this is a contradiction. I’m asking whether phenomenology itself requires this sort of familiarity, or whether Heidegger would say that such descriptions are possible without any privileged existential standpoint.
Has anyone written about this issue?

I've been thinking about this for a while and I'm not sure how to phrase it properly, so bear with me.

So the standard reading is: das Man = inauthentic, falling; authenticity = being your own self, resoluteness. And yeah, Heidegger is careful (bc he never says the One is "bad" or "evil", he always insists authenticity isn't a state you arrive at, he says Dasein never fully escapes the One, etc. It's pretty clear he's trying not to set up a simple binary.

But here's the thing that keeps nagging at me: the very act of writing Being and Time seems to come from someone who has already experienced something. Heidegger writes as if he knows what it means to hear the call, to feel the pull out of the One, to be individuated by death. I mean he is kinda describin it from the inside. So on one hand, he's saying: there's no absolute divide, the One is just everydayness, authenticity is just a modification, you can't leave "the cave" because there's no outside.

But on the other hand: he's writing as someone who has clearly been "outside" enough to describe the cave from a distance. Otherwise, how could he describe the call, the loss, the fallenness, the awakening? How could he write about the One as something to be overcome if he hadn't, in some sense, overcome it already?

It's like he's saying: "Don't think of it as two worlds, think of it as a shift." But the shift he describes is so radical that, for anyone who hasn't experienced it, it functions exactly like a dichotomy. For those who have been through it, it's not a binary — it's more like a before/after that you can't unsee. But for those who haven't, it's just a theoretical distinction.

So now i question: Is Heidegger's own writing betraying him here?

He tries so hard to avoid saying "there's the sleepers and the awakened", but he writes as if he's awakened (??) And if he's awakened, then there is a difference — not ontological, maybe, but existential, factual, lived.

Doesn't the very existence of Being and Time as a text suggest that Heidegger has been ontically touched by what he describes? And if so, doesn't that imply that there is a kind of experiential division (not metaphysical, but real) between those who have heard the call and those who haven't?

(sorry for the mistakes, english is not my first language)

Okay, so this is embarrassingly specific, but there's context.

There's a girl I like. Ofc this means I'm now overanalyzing every single thing that happens on WhatsApp.

what happened is that I was inside our chat because I had opened a PDF document from that conversation. The PDF was full screen, and I was actually reading it. While I was reading it, she sent me a few new messages.

The important part is that I didn't see those messages when they arrived because the PDF was covering the chat. I only saw them after I closed the PDF and returned to the conversation.

My question is:

From her point of view, when do the blue ticks appear?? Do they appear immediately because I was technically already inside our chat? Or do they only appear when I close the PDF and the conversation becomes visible again?

Basically... I don't care when they turned blue. What I'm trying to figure out is whether WhatsApp makes it look like I was sitting there staring at our chat the exact moment she texted me😭

Has anyone actually tested this?