Being-Towards-Death as a Form of Mastering Time
https://doi.org/10.18384/2949-5148-2026-1-6-12
Abstract
Aim. To reveal ontological potential of M. Heidegger’s concept of being-towards-death and to substantiate its reinterpretation as a specific mode of mastering time within the horizon of contemporary social-cultural and technological transformations.
Methodology. The study is based on a systemic approach, which made it possible to consider the concept of being-towards-death as a universal mechanism of time organization, integrated into social and institutional practices.
Results. It has been established that the concept of being-towards-death functions as a universal mechanism of time structuring. The creation of stable symbolic systems becomes a way of mastering time, extending existence beyond life and integrating it into cultural tradition.
Research implications. The study expands the boundaries of philosophy by demonstrating the potential of the concept of being-towards-death for analyzing contemporary challenges.
About the Author
O. I. Elkhova
Ufa University of Science and Technology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Oksana I. Elkhova, Dr. Sci. (Philosophy), Assoc. Prof., Prof.
Department of Philosophy and Cultural Studies
Ufa
References
1. Khan, B.-C. (2023). The Society of Fatigue. Negative Experience in the Era of Excessive Positivity. Moscow: AST publ. (in Russ.).
2. Elkhova, O. I. (2024). Digital Immortalization: Discussion about the Future of Human Evolution. In: The Digital Scholar: Philosopher’s Lab, 7 (3), 182–192. DOI: 10.32326/2618-9267-2024-7-3-182-192 (in Russ.).
3. Elkhova, O. I. (2024). Multilayer Structure of Personal Identity. In: Bulletin of Donetsk National University. Series B: Humanities, 1, 36–40. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14192665 (in Russ.).
4. Heidegger, M. (2003). Being and Time. Kharkov: Folio publ. (in Russ.).
5. Assman, Ya. (2004). Cultural Memory. Writing, Memory of the Past, and Political Identity in the High Cultures of Antiquity. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoi kultury publ. (in Russ.).
6. Ricoeur, P. (2004). Memory, History, Oblivion. Moscow: Humanitarian Literature publ. (in Russ.).
7. Wolpert, D. & Kipper, J. (2024). Memory Systems, the Epistemic Arrow of Time, and the Second Law. In: Entropy, 26 (2). URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/26/2/170 (accessed: 27. 09. 2025). DOI: 10.3390/e26020170.
8. Elkhova, O. I. (2025). Ontological-Societal Security Node as a Phenomenon of the Digital Environment. In: RUDN Journal of Philosophy, 29 (2), 317–334. DOI: 10.22363/2313-2302-2025-29-2-317-334 (in Russ.).
9. Fernández-Mateo, J. (2023). Philosophical & Bioethical Boundaries in Current Biotechnologies: Human Enhancement and Welfare Biology. In: Techno Review. International Technology Science and Society Review, 13, 103–114. DOI: 10.37467/revtechno.v13.5120.
10. Lazar, S. (2025). Governing the Algorithmic City. In: Philosophy & Public Affairs, 53, 102–168. DOI: 10.1111/papa.12279.
11. Arepyev, E. I., ed. Philosophy and Progress of Science: Practical Aspect. Kursk: Kursk State University publ. (in Russ.).
12. Haas, V., Eskinazi, R. H. & Jodelet, D. (2025). Collective Memory and Social Representations. In: Current Opinion in Psychology, 66. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X25001368 (accessed: 27.09.2025). DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102123.
Review
Views:
134
JATS XML
Email this article 