O que são as lágrimas - Heidegger

"We will now try to move somewhat closer to the phenomenon of the body. In doing so, we are not speaking of a solution to the problem of the body. Much has already been gained merely by starting to see this problem. Once again we refer to the text by Professor Hegglin. Among other things, it notes: "Sadness cannot be measured, but the tears formed by sadness due to psychosomatic relations can be investigated quantitatively in various directions." Yet you can never actually measure tears. If you try to measure them, you measure a fluid and its drops at the most, but not tears. Tears can only be seen directly. Where do tears belong? Are they something somatic or psychical? They are neither the one, nor the other. Take another phenomenon: Someone blushes with shame and embarrassment. Can the blushing be measured? Blushing with shame cannot be measured. Only the redness can be measured, for instance, by measuring the circulation of blood. Then is blushing something somatic or something psychical? It is neither one nor the other. Phenomenologically speaking, we can easily distinguish between a face blushing with shame and, for instance, a face flushed with fever or as a result of going inside of a warm hut after a cold mountain night outside. All three kinds of blushing appear on the face, but they are very different from each other and are immediately distinguished in our everyday being-with and being-for each other. We can "see" from the respective situations whether someone is embarrassed, for instance, or flushed for some other reason. Take the phenomenon of pain and sadness. For instance, bodily pain and grief for the death of a relative both involve "pain." What about these "pains'? Are they both somatic or are they both psychical? Or is only one of them somatic and the other psychical, or is it neither one nor the other? 

How do we measure sadness? Evidently, one cannot measure it at all! Why not? If one approached sadness with a method of measuring, the very approach would already be contrary to the meaning of sadness. Thus, one would preclude sadness as sadness beforehand. Here, even the claim to measure is already a violation of the phenomenon as a phenomenon. But do we not also use quantitative concepts in our speech about sadness? One does not speak of an "intense" sadness, but of a "great" or a "profound" sadness. One can also say, "He is 'a bit sad/ " but that does not mean a small quantity of sadness. The "a bit" refers to a quality of mood. This very depth, however, is by no means measurable. Not even the "depth" of this room as experienced in my being-in-the-world is measurable. That is, when I attend to depth in order to measure it by approaching the window over there, then the depth experience moves with me as I move toward the window, and it goes right through it. I can objectify and measure this depth as little as I can traverse my relationship to this depth. Yet I am able, more or less, to estimate the distance precisely from me to the window. Certainly. Yet, in this case, I measure the distance between two bodies, not the depth opened up in each case by my being-in-the-world. Regarding the depth of a feeling of sadness, there is no reason or occasion whatsoever to estimate it quantitatively, let alone to measure it. As far as sadness is concerned, it can only be shown how a person is affected by it and how his relationship to himself and the world is changed."
Heidegger, "Zollikon Seminars" p.81-82 (ger. p. 106-107)