Being-in-the-world (n.) is a unified structure that refuses seeing the self and world as two separate beings, just as the subject and object are not to be taken as two separate beings.
Being-in-the-world (n.) is almost equivalent to 'dasein'.
Being-in-the-world (n.) is engendered when man, who projects himself into the future, is in a situation where the ahead-of-itself comes back to having-been, the present.
Being-in-the-world (n.) is the grounding state of being. It is the fundamental ground upon which every other determination of being rests.
Being-in-the-world (n.) is the idea that self and world are not two beings, like subject and object. Rather, self and world are the unity of the structure of 'being-in-the-world'.
Being-in-the-world (n.) is the idea that the world is not something that has to be proved as if we were stuck with some internal world and can’t get out. We are, from the start, in-the-world.
Being-in-the-world (n.) is an argument against the cartesian notion that we are subjects encountering objects, but that it is on account of my capacities for being in the world that anything gets encountered at all.
Being-in-the-world (n.) is not to be understood in a spatial sense. To be ‘in’ the world is like to be ‘in’ trouble or ‘in’ love. Only Humans can be ‘in’ in this way and thus being-in-the-world refers to an exclusively human phenomenon.
Being-in-the-world (n.) is not spatial. These sort of theory is precisely what is to be avoided.
Being-in-the-world (n.) is a reinterpretation of the activity of existing, where ex-istence is given the narrow reading of ‘standing out’.
Being-in-the-world (n.) is a term indicating that we are essentially involved in a context - we have a place in a meaningful whole where we deal with other things and people.
Being-in-the-world (n.) is a recognition that if our connections to other beings were cut, we would not end up inside our mind - we would end up without a mind at all.
Being-in-the-world (n.) is, to be sure, an a priori and necessary constitution of Dasein but is by no means sufficient to determine fully its being.
Being-in-the-world (n.) is never primarily the objective, decontextualized theoretical gaze of the philosophical tradition. Our understanding always arises out of a specific situation, and always brings with it some attunement or other.
Being-in-the-world (n.) is a recognition that the opposition of inner and outer world is nonsense. We do not face a lot of neutral data, some purely objective ‘outside’, from which we then build a world. By the same token, we cannot withdraw ourselves into some purely ‘inside’ realm of detached consciousness from which we might look out at our involvements from a distance.