Being There... But Being Where?

Mindfulness, Dasein, Mitsein and the Illusion of Freedom in Camus' The Guest and David Oelhoffen's Far from Men

“Aristotle says that in order to live alone one must either be an animal or a god. The third alternative is lacking. A man must be both; a philosopher.” ―Friedrich Nietzsche # Being There... But Where? ## Mindfulness, Dasein, Mitsein and the Illusion of Freedom in Camus' The Guest and David Oelhoffen's Far from Men ## Introduction: The Comfort of Being Here and Now Few philosophical ideas have become as universally attractive in the twenty-first century as the invitation to live "here and now." From mindfulness manuals and Buddhist meditation to popular psychology, existential therapy and introductory philosophy textbooks, the present moment has gradually acquired an almost sacred status. Anxiety supposedly belongs to the future, regret to the past, while peace exists only within the immediate experience of the present. This intellectual movement has found expression in remarkably different traditions. Eastern Buddhist practices encourage complete awareness of immediate experience, while contemporary psychology frequently presents mindfulness as an effective remedy for stress, depression and emotional exhaustion. Even introductory philosophical texts such as Lewis Vaughn's Philosophy Here and Now argue that philosophy is not an abstract academic discipline but a practical guide for everyday living, showing how philosophical reflection directly shapes ordinary human choices. At a more theoretical level, phenomenology and existentialism similarly reject abstract metaphysics in favour of concrete existence. Martin Heidegger's famous concept of Dasein—literally "being-there"—appears to reinforce precisely this emphasis. Human beings do not first exist as detached minds contemplating reality from outside; they always already exist somewhere, at some particular moment, surrounded by concrete things, relationships and possibilities. Philosophy therefore seems to abandon universal systems in favour of lived experience itself. Reality becomes immediate presence rather than distant abstraction. According to this perspective, authenticity consists not in escaping existence but in inhabiting it fully. This celebration of presence has become one of the defining philosophical sensibilities of modern culture. It promises liberation from ideological dogmas, historical burdens and metaphysical illusions by returning individuals to immediate experience. Instead of worrying about history, politics or collective identities, one should simply inhabit the present moment. Instead of living according to inherited traditions, one should choose one's own authentic existence. Instead of allowing society to dictate one's values, one should courageously become oneself. Yet beneath this attractive simplicity lies a question that contemporary mindfulness and even certain interpretations of existentialism often leave unanswered. Being here—but where? Being now—but when? Being there—but among whom? Human existence is never suspended in an empty philosophical vacuum. Every "here" is already a particular land. Every "now" belongs to a particular history. Every human being is born into a language, a community, a moral order and an inherited network of obligations that long precede individual consciousness. One may attempt to ignore these realities, but they rarely ignore us. Albert Camus understood this dilemma more profoundly than almost any twentieth-century writer, while David Oelhoffen's remarkable 2014 adaptation Far from Men transforms it into one of the most powerful philosophical films of recent decades. What initially appears to be an existential story about freedom gradually becomes something much more unsettling. The film begins with Dasein but ends with Mitsein. It begins with the possibility of solitary authenticity but concludes with the terrible discovery that no human being ever exists entirely alone. Daru believes that freedom means remaining outside history. Mohamed knows that history always lives inside the individual. By the time the journey across the Atlas Mountains ends, both characters—and the audience with them—discover that being there is never enough. The real question is whether one can ever exist far from men at all. ## Part I: The Promise of Dasein: The Philosophy of Being Here and Now The extraordinary popularity of mindfulness, presentism and existential philosophy reflects a profound transformation in the way modern individuals understand freedom. Unlike ancient philosophy, which usually placed the individual within a larger political, religious or cosmic order, contemporary philosophy increasingly begins with the individual alone. The question is no longer "What is the good society?" but "How can I live authentically?" Happiness becomes an individual project rather than a communal achievement. Mindfulness teaches that suffering originates from attachment to the past and anxiety about the future. Peace, therefore, can only be discovered in the immediate present. The individual learns to observe thoughts without judgment, to experience reality directly and to free consciousness from endless narratives. The present moment becomes almost sacred because it appears to escape history altogether. Similar tendencies emerge within phenomenology. Edmund Husserl sought to return philosophy "to the things themselves," while Martin Heidegger radicalised this movement by abandoning the detached Cartesian subject in favour of Dasein, the human being understood as "Being-there." Human existence is never an abstract mind contemplating reality from outside but always a concrete presence already situated within a particular world. The philosopher no longer searches for eternal metaphysical truths but investigates existence itself as it is lived. The authentic individual becomes someone who recognises his mortality, accepts responsibility for his own choices and refuses to dissolve into what Heidegger famously called Das Man—the anonymous "They" that dictates conventional opinions, values and behaviour. Authenticity thus appears as an act of courageous individualisation. To exist authentically is to become oneself rather than merely repeating inherited social expectations. This philosophical development has exercised enormous influence far beyond academic philosophy. It has shaped existential psychotherapy, contemporary self-help literature, leadership manuals, mindfulness movements and even popular culture. Increasingly, individuals are encouraged to discover themselves by withdrawing from external pressures and returning to immediate personal experience. Solitude becomes liberation. Independence becomes authenticity. Freedom appears to consist in escaping inherited identities and constructing one's own meaning. Even death acquires a new philosophical significance. Heidegger's Being-toward-death transforms mortality into the ultimate source of authentic existence because only awareness of one's finite life forces the individual to assume personal responsibility for existence itself. Modern philosophy therefore presents an extraordinarily attractive image of freedom: one can become oneself by stepping outside collective expectations and choosing one's own path. The authentic individual stands alone against history, ideology, religion and tradition. In many respects this vision perfectly captures the modern imagination. The isolated thinker, the independent intellectual, the solitary traveller, the mindful observer and the existential rebel all embody different versions of the same philosophical ideal. They promise liberation from conformity through radical individuality. Yet a quiet ambiguity already inhabits Heidegger's own philosophy. Dasein never simply means "being." It literally means "being-there." The expression immediately raises questions that contemporary celebrations of authenticity rarely pursue. Where exactly is "there"? When is "there"? Under what historical conditions does this apparently autonomous individual exist? Heidegger himself repeatedly insists that Dasein is "thrown" into a world it never chose. Every human being is born into a language already spoken, traditions already established, customs already obeyed and institutions already functioning. No one invents his own world from nothing. Even the possibility of authenticity presupposes an inherited social reality within which choices become meaningful. More importantly, Heidegger insists that Dasein is fundamentally Mitsein—Being-with. Human existence is never originally solitary. One does not first exist alone and later encounter other people. Existence is social from the very beginning. Language itself presupposes others. Meaning presupposes others. Tools presuppose others. History presupposes others. The isolated individual therefore becomes increasingly difficult to imagine philosophically. If authenticity means merely withdrawing from society, it risks misunderstanding the very structure of human existence. One may temporarily leave other people physically, but one never leaves language, history or the countless invisible relationships that already constitute one's identity. The question therefore becomes unavoidable. Can Dasein ever exist without Mitsein? Can there truly be a human being "far from men"? Albert Camus' The Guest and David Oelhoffen's Far from Men begin by answering "yes." By their conclusion they reveal why the answer is almost certainly "no." ## Part II: Being There... But Where? Daru, Mohamed and the Limits of Dasein Albert Camus' short story The Guest (L'Hôte), first published in 1957, and David Oelhoffen's remarkable 2014 adaptation Far from Men initially appear to confirm the existential ideal of the solitary individual. Daru, the French-Algerian schoolteacher living alone on the barren Atlas plateau, seems almost a cinematic embodiment of Heidegger's Dasein. He inhabits an isolated schoolhouse suspended between mountains and desert, physically distant from both French colonial authority and the Algerian villages surrounding him. His existence appears deliberately detached from politics, ideology and tribal loyalties. He teaches children, distributes grain during famine and wishes only to remain outside the rapidly escalating violence of the Algerian War. His isolation is not merely geographical but philosophical. Daru believes that morality belongs to the individual conscience rather than to governments, armies or tribes. He refuses to become either an agent of French colonial authority or a participant in nationalist revenge. Like the authentic individual described by existential philosophy, he seeks to determine his own actions independently of inherited collective identities. When the French gendarme Balducci delivers Mohamed into his custody and orders him to escort the prisoner to the authorities, Daru immediately resists. He refuses to become an instrument of political power. His decision appears entirely existential. He will act neither because the state commands him nor because society expects obedience, but because his own conscience demands it. Throughout the first half of both Camus' story and Oelhoffen's film, Daru therefore represents perhaps the purest image of Dasein in modern literature: a solitary human being attempting to preserve authentic existence in the midst of historical catastrophe. The vast landscape itself reinforces this existential reading. The Atlas Mountains seem to erase ordinary social existence. Endless stone plateaus, frozen ridges and silent valleys create the impression that history has disappeared and only existence itself remains. Daru's schoolhouse resembles a philosophical laboratory where the individual can finally confront himself without interference from civilisation. Here there are no crowded cities, no political debates, no bureaucracies and apparently no community capable of imposing collective obligations. The mountains promise precisely what modern existentialism so often celebrates: the possibility of becoming oneself. Yet this apparent freedom proves deceptive from the very beginning because Daru's isolation is never as complete as he imagines. His school exists because of French colonial administration. The language he teaches is French. His identity as a pied-noir already places him within a violent historical conflict that he did not choose. Even the food he distributes reflects colonial policies. The mountains therefore do not remove him from history; they merely conceal its presence beneath an illusion of solitude. Heidegger's notion of thrownness (Geworfenheit) becomes painfully literal. Daru has been thrown into Algeria, into colonialism, into war and into relationships that existed long before his personal decisions. His Dasein is already historically situated before he makes a single existential choice. Mohamed embodies an entirely different understanding of human existence. Unlike Daru, he never imagines that identity can exist independently of community. Everything about his behaviour expresses Heidegger's second great existential structure—Mitsein, Being-with. Mohamed is never simply an isolated individual confronting abstract freedom. He remains inseparable from his family, his village, his tribe and the unwritten laws that govern their lives. His crime itself arises from this communal world. He has killed his cousin during a dispute over grain, an act embedded within centuries of tribal customs concerning honour, kinship and justice. To modern liberal observers this may appear irrational or primitive, yet within Mohamed's world individual identity cannot be separated from collective existence. A man does not belong primarily to himself but to his people. His actions affect families rather than isolated individuals. Honour belongs to communities rather than autonomous persons. Consequently, Mohamed understands something that Daru initially cannot. There is no escape from the social world simply by walking into the mountains. Even when physically alone with Daru, he remains existentially accompanied by generations of ancestors, neighbours and inherited obligations. His people are present even in their absence. Whereas Daru attempts to escape history by becoming merely "a man," Mohamed understands that one is always someone's son, someone's neighbour, someone's kinsman and someone's responsibility. Dasein, in his world, has never existed independently of Mitsein. This difference gradually transforms what first appears to be a simple prisoner escort into one of the deepest philosophical confrontations in modern cinema. It is no longer merely a conflict between colonialism and nationalism, or between France and Algeria. It becomes a confrontation between two fundamentally different conceptions of what it means to be human. ## Part III: Far from Men: Why Mitsein Comes Before Dasein The decisive philosophical reversal occurs at the end of both Camus' story and Oelhoffen's film. Throughout their journey Daru continues to believe that freedom ultimately belongs to the individual. His greatest moral gesture is not deciding Mohamed's fate but refusing to decide it. At the crossroads he gives the prisoner food, money and complete freedom of choice. One path leads south toward the nomads and possible escape. The other leads east to Tinguit, where the French authorities—and almost certain execution—await him. At first glance this appears to be the ultimate existential moment. The world suddenly opens into pure possibility. Mohamed is no longer a prisoner but an autonomous individual capable of choosing his own future. This resembles Heidegger's description of authentic existence as the opening of possibilities before Dasein. Daru believes he has liberated Mohamed by removing every external authority. Neither the French army nor tribal law now determines the prisoner's destiny. Only Mohamed himself remains. It is the perfect existential experiment. What will a completely free human being choose when confronted with absolute responsibility? Modern philosophy almost instinctively expects the answer. Freedom should choose life. The authentic individual should reject inherited obligations and seize the possibility of beginning anew. The road to the nomads appears to represent exactly this modern ideal—a future liberated from history, tradition and collective expectations. Mohamed does precisely the opposite. He walks deliberately towards prison. Towards trial. Towards death. To many contemporary viewers this decision initially appears irrational or even tragic. Why would any free individual voluntarily choose execution over escape? Yet this reaction exposes the assumptions of modern individualism far more than it reveals Mohamed's character. Mohamed understands something that Daru—and perhaps much of contemporary philosophy—has failed to understand. There is no such thing as abstract freedom detached from the world in which one actually lives. Freedom always exists somewhere. It always belongs to someone. Mohamed's existence is inseparable from his name, his family, his village and the tribal code governing generations before him. Escaping into the desert would not truly make him free because he would cease to be himself. He would survive biologically but disappear socially. He would become a man without a name, without honour, without ancestors and without descendants. His body might remain alive, but his existence would already have ended. Death among his own people therefore possesses greater existential authenticity than anonymous survival among strangers. He does not choose death because he despises life. He chooses death because he refuses to exist outside the world that gives his life meaning. His final decision unexpectedly reveals Heidegger's deeper insight. Dasein is never merely Being-there. It is always already Mitsein—Being-with. Human existence does not first become social; it is social from the beginning. Mohamed understands this instinctively because his entire identity has always been constituted by relationships rather than isolated autonomy. Daru arrives at precisely the opposite discovery, but only after it is too late. He survives. Mohamed does not. Yet the true existential defeat belongs not to the prisoner but to the teacher. Returning alone to his isolated schoolhouse, Daru discovers the famous sentence written across the classroom blackboard: "You handed over our brother. You will pay." In that single moment the entire dream of isolated authenticity collapses. Daru believed he had remained neutral. History informs him that neutrality never existed. He believed he had respected individual freedom. The local community judges him according to its own moral order. He believed himself to be simply a human being. Others continue to see him as a Frenchman, a colonial settler and an outsider. His Dasein cannot erase the historical world into which he has been thrown. The mountains never belonged exclusively to him. He was always, despite his love for the landscape, merely a guest. This is the profound irony hidden within Camus' original French title, L'Hôte, a word meaning both "guest" and "host." Daru believes himself to be the host offering hospitality to Mohamed. By the end he discovers that he has always been the guest—living temporarily within a land governed by customs, memories and obligations older than his own moral philosophy. His mindfulness cannot save him. His authenticity cannot protect him. His refusal to choose becomes itself a choice interpreted by others according to laws he neither created nor fully understood. This is why Far from Men ultimately overturns the comforting optimism of contemporary "here and now" philosophy. Being present is not enough. Being authentic is not enough. Being there is not enough. Every Dasein must answer two unavoidable questions: being where, and being when? Human existence always unfolds within a particular geography, a particular history and a particular community whose moral world cannot simply be suspended by individual consciousness. Mindfulness may free the individual from anxiety about tomorrow, but it cannot abolish the obligations inherited from yesterday. Presence may produce psychological serenity, but it cannot erase the social realities that constitute identity itself. Daru learns that one cannot simply stand outside history. Mohamed knows that one never could. The film therefore reaches a conclusion that is simultaneously existential, political and anthropological. Radical individual freedom is not the highest form of human existence because no human being has ever existed entirely alone. Only gods and animals can live outside society. Mortals live among other mortals. They inherit languages, laws, loyalties and obligations that shape every choice long before choice itself becomes possible. Nietzsche's famous observation therefore acquires an entirely new resonance: "Aristotle says that in order to live alone one must either be an animal or a god. The third alternative is lacking. A man must be both; a philosopher." Daru attempts to become that impossible philosopher. Mohamed remains a man among men. In the end, the film suggests that the second path, however tragic, is the more profoundly human one. ## Conclusion: There Is No Such Place as "Far from Men" The philosophical journey that begins with mindfulness and ends in the Atlas Mountains ultimately reveals one of the deepest paradoxes of modern thought. Contemporary philosophy repeatedly encourages individuals to return to the present moment, to free themselves from the burdens of history, ideology and inherited identities, and to discover authenticity through immediate existence. Heidegger's Dasein appears to offer precisely such a possibility. Human beings are invited to become themselves by confronting their own mortality and assuming responsibility for their own existence. The individual seems capable of standing before the world alone, choosing independently, living authentically and creating meaning from within. Yet Camus and Oelhoffen quietly dismantle this attractive vision without ever directly attacking it. They simply ask the question that contemporary existentialism too often leaves unanswered. Being there—but where? Being now—but when? No human existence unfolds in an empty philosophical landscape. Every Dasein is always already embedded within a particular geography, a particular historical moment and a particular community whose moral world existed long before the individual arrived. Authenticity does not abolish these conditions. It merely takes place within them. The final irony is devastating. Daru remains physically alive, yet he loses the very world in which he believed himself to belong. The mountains he loved no longer recognise him. His schoolhouse ceases to be a refuge and becomes a place of judgment. The sentence written on the blackboard—"You handed over our brother. You will pay."—is not merely a threat of revenge. It is the collapse of the existential illusion that an individual can stand outside history. Daru imagined himself to be neutral because he judged himself according to his own conscience. The people among whom he lived judged him according to theirs. His personal authenticity proved powerless against a social reality centuries older than his own moral reasoning. He discovers, too late, that he was never simply "there." He was always there somewhere, among someone, during a particular war, on someone else's land. He was never the universal human being imagined by existential philosophy. He was always, in Camus' profoundly ambiguous title, the guest. His tragedy is not that he made the wrong decision but that he believed there could be a decision outside the historical world itself. Mohamed's fate appears infinitely darker yet philosophically more coherent. He rejects biological survival because survival without belonging would no longer be his life. He chooses death not as resignation but as fidelity—to his name, his family, his village, his ancestors and the unwritten laws through which his existence has acquired meaning. Modern liberal individualism interprets this as irrational submission to tradition. The film suggests something far more unsettling. Mohamed understands that freedom detached from community is merely another abstraction. A human being who abandons every relationship in order to preserve only his individual existence eventually preserves almost nothing at all. He would remain alive but cease to be himself. In Heideggerian terms, Mohamed demonstrates that Mitsein is not the opposite of Dasein but its hidden foundation. One never first becomes an isolated individual and only afterwards joins society. Human existence is social from its very beginning. Language, memory, honour, responsibility and identity emerge only because other people already exist. Perhaps this is why Far from Men becomes one of the most profound cinematic meditations on Heidegger without ever mentioning his name. The film begins by celebrating Dasein and ends by revealing its incompleteness. The individual certainly exists, but never alone. Presence matters, but presence is always somewhere. Freedom exists, but only within inherited worlds that no individual has created. Mindfulness may calm the mind, existentialism may strengthen personal responsibility and Dasein may illuminate the structure of authentic existence, yet none of them abolishes the deeper anthropological reality expressed by Mitsein. Human beings do not merely exist; they exist among other human beings. Only gods and animals can truly live alone. Mortals cannot. Nietzsche's famous observation therefore becomes the unexpected philosophical epilogue to Camus' story and Oelhoffen's film: "Aristotle says that in order to live alone one must either be an animal or a god. The third alternative is lacking. A man must be both; a philosopher." Daru attempts to become precisely this impossible philosopher, standing outside history in order to judge it objectively. Mohamed never attempts such an escape. He accepts that existence is inseparable from the people among whom one is born. The result is tragic for both men, but only one of them dies at home. The other survives as a stranger. In the end, there is no such place as "far from men." Every attempt to escape humanity ultimately returns us to the same unavoidable truth: we become ourselves only because we have always belonged, for better or worse, among other human beings. The illusion is not community. The illusion is believing that freedom can ever exist without it. ## References Aristotle (2009) *Politics*. Translated by C.D.C. Reeve. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing. Batchelor, S. (2015) *After Buddhism: Rethinking the Dharma for a Secular Age*. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Camus, A. (1957) *L'Exil et le Royaume*. Paris: Gallimard. Camus, A. (1989) *The Guest*. In: *Exile and the Kingdom*. Translated by Justin O'Brien. New York: Vintage International. Dreyfus, H.L. (1991) *Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger's Being and Time, Division I*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Heidegger, M. (1962) *Being and Time*. Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. Oxford: Blackwell. Husserl, E. (1970) *The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology*. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Kabat-Zinn, J. (1994) *Wherever You Go, There You Are: Mindfulness Meditation in Everyday Life*. New York: Hyperion. Nietzsche, F. (1968) *The Will to Power*. Translated by Walter Kaufmann and R.J. Hollingdale. New York: Vintage Books. Nietzsche, F. (1974) *The Gay Science*. Translated by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Vintage Books. Oelhoffen, D. (Director) (2014) *Far from Men (Loin des hommes)* [Film]. France: One World Films. Olafson, F.A. (1987) *Heidegger and the Philosophy of Mind*. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Safran, J.D. and Segal, Z.V. (1990) *Interpersonal Process in Cognitive Therapy*. New York: Basic Books. Sheehan, T. (2015) *Making Sense of Heidegger: A Paradigm Shift*. London: Rowman & Littlefield. Vaughn, L. (2025) *Philosophy Here and Now: Powerful Ideas in Everyday Life*. 5th edn. New York: Oxford University Press. Wrathall, M.A. (2005) *How to Read Heidegger*. London: Granta Books. Young, J. (1997) *Heidegger, Philosophy, Nazism*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.