Being and givenness in the philosophy of M. Heidegger

The author believes that it is possible to discuss Heidegger's philosophy only in the light of a more or less clarified understanding of being, but this is precisely the main difficulty: Heidegger invites you on the road without saying where to go and what to guide you on the road. What should serve as a guideline to understand it correctly? From what preliminary understanding of being should we proceed when talking about fundamental ontology, ontotheology, ontological difference? First of all, my own being is for me a point of reference and a starting position in the comprehension of being and the construction of ontology. Therefore, the meaning of being is read not from the existing in general, but from the concrete existing, from itself. The being of Dasein – finite, because the existing one is mortal. However, the existence of a person is different from the existence of a number, a tree or an angel – how then to understand what meaning this word has? If being is time, and time is myself, then what is being a rock, a number, or God? In addition, Heidegger does not limit himself to the statement that God or an angel are given to consciousness, that is, given as certain entities, he says that they exist, that is, that entities are essences. This corresponds to the concept of "givenness" in phenomenology. At the same time, the datum can refer to anything, for example, to a unicorn and pegasus, Zeus and Hera, a round square and a wooden iron, but without considering them as something existing. Therefore, the question naturally arises about how Heidegger understands being after all, why does reality act as a synonym for being for him?

Being, beings, Heidegger, givenness, phenomenology, God, intentionality, Duns Scot, existence, Husserl