there any other way at all by which an entity can put itself into words with regard to its Being? We cannot ever 'avoid' a 'circular' proof in the existential analytic, because such an analytic does not do any proving at all by the rules of the 'logic of consistency'. What common sense wishes to eliminate in avoiding the 'circle', on the supposition that it is measuring up to the loftiest rigour of scientific investigation, is nothing less than the basic structure of care. Because it is primordially constituted by care, any Dasein is already ahead of itself. As being, it has in every case already projected itself upon definite possibilities of its existence; and · in such existentiell projections it has, in a pre-ontological manner, also projected something like existence and Being. Like all research, the research which wants to develop and conceptualize that kind of Being which belongs to existence, is itself a kind of Being which disclosive Dasein possesses; can such research be denied this projecting which is essential to Dasein?

Yet the 'charge of circularity' itself comes from a kind of Being which belongs to Dasein. Something like a projection, even an ontological one, still remains for the common sense of our concernful absorption in the "they" ; but it necessarily seems strange to us, because common sense barricades itself against it 'on principle'. Common sense concerns itself, whether 'theoretically' or 'practically', only with entities which can be surveyed at a glance circumspectively. What is distinctive in common sense is that it has in view only the experiencing of 'factual' entities, in order that it may be able to rid itself of an understanding of Being. It fails to recognize that entities can be experienced 'factually' only when Being is already understood, even if it has not been conceptualized. Common sense misunderstands understanding. And therefore common sense must necessarily pass off as 'violent' anything that lies beyond the reach of its understanding, or any attempt to go out so far.

When one talks of the 'circle' in understanding, one expresses a failure to recognize two things: (1) that understanding as such makes up a basic kind of Dasein's Being, and (2) that this Being is constituted as care. To deny the circle, to make a secret of it, or even to want to overcome it, means finally to reinforce this failure. We must rather endeavour to leap into the 'circle', primordially and wholly, so that even at the start of the analysis of Dasein we make sure that we have a full view of Dasein's circular Being. If, in the ontology of Dasein, we 'take our departure' from a worldless "I" in order to provide this "I" with an Object and an [316] ontologically baseless relation to that Object, then we have 'presupposed' not too much, but too little. If we make a problem of 'life', and then just occasionally have regard for death too, our view is too short-sighted. The object we have taken as our theme is artificially and dogmatically curtailed if 'in the