Heidegger framed being as a question meant to astonish rather than to be answered

Evidence

For Heidegger, this ‘why’ is not the sort of question that seeks an answer from physics or cosmology. No account of the Big Bang or divine Creation could satisfy it. The point of asking the question is mainly to boggle the mind. If you had to sum up Heidegger’s opening sally in Being and Time in one word, that word might be ‘wow!’ It was this that led the critic George Steiner to call Heidegger ‘the great master of astonishment’ — the person who ‘put a radiant obstacle in the path of the obvious’. — Sarah Bakewell, At the Existentialist Café, 173

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines the core Heideggerian stance around Being and Time: being is a question for astonishment, not explanation.
• XREF: The ‘why is there anything at all rather than nothing’ question connects directly to Leibniz and later resurfaces in cosmological debates; also echoes the reader’s interest in how Continental philosophy contrasts with analytic physics-style answers. — connects to: Objective questions about a project’s worth remain transcendent and cannot trigger genuine anguish; Heidegger staged his lectures as controlled theatre and derided spontaneous discussion — Sarah Bakewell, At the Existentialist Café: Freedom,…, 191; Heidegger’s 1929 lecture could induce near-ecstatic states in listeners. — Sarah Bakewell, At the Existentialist Café: Freedom,…, 249 (+3 more)
• SEED: Angle: ‘The master of astonishment’ — how a disposition (wonder vs. explanation) split Continental from analytic philosophy at the very founding moment.