the handy has already projected such being upon time. Roughly speaking, use of time is made in the understanding of being, without pre-philosophical and non-philosophical Dasein knowing about it explicitly. Nevertheless, this interconnection between being and time is not totally hidden from the Dasein but is familiar to it in an interpretation which, to be sure, is very much misunderstood and very misleading. In a certain way, the Dasein understands that the interpretation of being is connected in some form or other with time. Pre-philosophical as well as philosophical knowledge customarily distinguishes beings in respect of their mode of being with regard to time. Ancient philosophy defines as the being that is in the most primary and truest sense, the aei on, the ever-being, and distinguishes it from the changeable, which only sometimes is, sometimes is not. In ordinary discourse, a being of this latter kind is called a temporal being. "Temporal" means here "running its course in time." From this delineation of everlasting and temporal beings, the characterization then goes on to define the timeless and the supratemporal. "Timeless" refers to the mode of being of numbers, of pure space determinations, whereas the supratemporal is the eternal in the sense of aeternitas as distinguished from sempiternitas. In these distinctions of the various types of being with regard to time, time is taken in the common sense as intratemporality. It cannot be an accident that, when they characterize being, both pre-philosophical and philosophical understanding are already oriented toward time. On the other hand, we saw that when Kant tries to conceive being as such and defines it as position, he manifestly makes no use of time in the common sense. But it does not follow from this that he made no use of temporality in the original sense of Temporality, without an understanding of being, without himself being in the clear about the condition of possibility of his ontological propositions.
We shall attempt a Temporal interpretation of the being of those extant entities in our nearest neighborhood, handiness; and we shall show in an exemplary way with regard to transcendence how the understanding of being is possible Temporally. By this means it is proved that the function of time is to make possible the understanding of being. In connection with this we shall return to the first thesis, that of Kant, and will try to establish on the basis of our results so far the degree to which our critique of Kant was valid and in what way it must be fundamentally supplemented in its positive part.
Let us recall the temporality of our dealings with equipment which was described earlier. This commerce as such makes an equipmental contexture