Heidegger’s pure Being is actually hyper-mediated, not immediate

Evidence

Karl Heinz Haag, a student of his who was now his research assistant, had trenchantly demonstrated in his work the way in which Heidegger made a virtue of necessity: since he was unable to conceive of Being in its traditional meaning, as a result of nominalist criticism, he defined it as the not-ness' of entitiesas that which was pure mediation, transitive being, unique in its sudden change into the entity of existing’ Being. The thinking of Being was a thinking of Being in the sense of the objective genitive only to the extent that it was a thinking of Being in the sense of the subjective genitive. Thinking was the thinking of that which it thought. Both entities and thinking were presented as a destiny of Beingan undefined, transitive, pure Being. Being, which precisely in its purity is the exact opposite of pure immediacy, namely something that is mediated through and through and only meaningful in mediations, was assumed to be immediacy per se. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 2509

Categorization

• DEFINE: Explains the Heideggerian ‘Being’ as nominalist-driven, defined negatively as not-ness of entities — a precise clarification of an opaque concept.