enable us to see what we may call the 'subject' of everydayness—the "they". Our chapter on the 'who' of the average Dasein will thus be divided up as follows: 1. an approach to the existential question of the "who" of Dasein (Section 25); 2. the Dasein-with of Others, and everyday Being-with (Section 26); 3. everyday Being-one's-Self and the "they" (Section 27) .
¶ 25. An Approach to the Existential Question of the "Who" of Dasein
The answer to the question of who Dasein is, is one that was seemingly given in Section g, where we indicated formally the basic characteristics of Dasein. Dasein is an entity which is in each case I myself; its Being is in each case mine. This definition indicates an ontologically constitutive state, but it does no more than indicate it. At the same time this tells us ontically (though in a rough and ready fashion) that in each case an "I"—not Others—is this entity. The question of the "who" answers itself in terms of the "I" itself, the 'subject', the 'Self'.1 The "who" is what maintains itself as something identical throughout changes in its Experiences and ways of behaviour, and which relates itself to this changing multiplicity in so doing. Ontologically we understand it as something which is in each case already constantly present-at-hand, both in and for a closed realm, and which lies at the basis, in a very special sense, as the subjectum. As something selfsame in manifold otherness,2 it has the character of the Self. Even if one rejects the "soul substance" and the Thinghood of consciousness, or denies that a person is an object, ontologically one is still positing something whose Being retains the meaning of present-at-hand, whether it does so explicitly or not. Substantiality is the ontological clue for determining which entity is to provide the answer to the question of the "who". Dasein is tacitly conceived in advance as something present-at-hand. 115 This meaning of Being is always implicated in any case where the Being of Dasein has been left indefinite. Yet presence-at-hand is the kind of Being which belongs to entities whose character is not that of Dasein.
The assertion that it is I who in each case Dasein is, is ontically obvious; but this must not mislead us into supposing that the route for an ontological Interpretation of what is 'given' in this way has thus been unmistakably prescribed. Indeed it remains questionable whether even the mere ontical content of the above assertion does proper justice to the stock of phenomena belonging to everyday Dasein. It could be that the "who" of everyday Dasein just is not the "I myself".
1 'dem "Selbst"'. While we shall ordinarily translate the intensive 'selbst' by the corresponding English intensives 'itself', 'oneself', 'myself', etc., according to the context, we shall translate the substantive 'Selbst' by the substantive 'Self' with a capital.
2 '... als Selbiges in der vielfältigen Andersheit ...' While the words 'identisch' and 'selbig' are virtually synonyms in ordinary German, Heidegger seems to be intimating a d1stmctwn between them. We shall accordingly translate the former by 'identical' and the latter by 'selfsame' to show its etymological connection with 'selbst'. Cf. H. 130 below.