we give the name of "care". In uncanniness Dasein stands together with [287] itself primordially. Uncanniness brings this entity face to face with its undisguised nullity, which belongs to the possibility of its ownmost potentiality-for-Being. To the extent that for Dasein, as care, its Being is an issue, it summons itself as a "they" which is factically falling, and summons itself from its uncanniness towards its potentiality-for-Being.1 The appeal calls back by calling forth:2 it calls Dasein forth to the possibility of taking over, in existing, even that thrown entity which it is; it calls Dasein back to its thrownness so as to understand this thrownness as the null basis which it has to take up into existence. This calling-back in which conscience calls forth, gives Dasein to understand that Dasein itself—the null basis for its null projection, standing in the possibility ofits Being—is to bring itself back to itself from its lostness in the "they"; and this means that it is guilty.
But in that case the sort of thing which Dasein gives itself to understand would be information about itself. And the hearing which corresponds to such a call would be a taking cognizance of the Fact that one is 'guilty'. If, however, the call is to have the character of a summons, does not this way of interpreting the conscience lead to a complete perversion of its function? Does not a "summons to Being-guilty" mean a summons to evil?
One would not want to impose. upon the conscience such a meaning for the "call", even in the most violent of Interpretations. But if not, what does it mean to 'summon one to Being-guilty'?
The meaning of the "call" becomes plain if, in our understanding of it, we stick to the existential sense of "Being-guilty", instead of making basic the derivative conception of guilt in the sense of an indebtedness which has 'arisen' through some deed done or left undone. Such a demand is not arbitrary, if the call of conscience, coming from Dasein itself, is directed towards that entity alone. But if so, the "summons to Being-guilty" signifies a calling-forth to that potentiality-for-Being which in each case I as Dasein am already. Dasein need not first load a 'guilt' upon itself through its failures or omissions; it must only be 'guilty' authentically—'guilty' in the way in which it is.3
Hearing the appeal correctly is thus tantamount to having an understanding of oneself in one's ownmost potentiality-for-Being—that is, to projecting oneself upon one's ownmost authentic potentiality for becoming
1 We follow the newer editions in reading: '... ruft es aus der Unheimlichkeit sich selbst als faktisch-verfallendes Man auf zu seinem Seinkonnen.' This is apparently a COrrection of the older version, where one finds 'Man selbst' instead of 'Man', and might be tempted to construe this as a misprint for 'Man-selbst' ('they-self').
2 'Der Anruf ist vorrufender Rückruf.'
3 '... es soli nur das "schuldig"—als welches es ist—eigentlich sein.'