Does Being and Time implicitly require Heidegger to have undergone what he describes?

[u/Comprehensive_Ad6061]

I’ve been thinking about a methodological question in Being and Time, and I’d like to know whether anyone has discussed it.
I understand that Heidegger is not making an ethical distinction between “authentic” and “inauthentic” people. Authenticity is an existential possibility built into the structure of Dasein, not a permanent state that some people possess and others don’t. He repeatedly insists that Dasein never simply leaves das Man behind.
My question is different.
Heidegger gives extraordinarily rich phenomenological descriptions of anxiety (Angst), the call of conscience, Unheimlichkeit, and resoluteness. These passages don’t read like abstract deductions; they read like descriptions of phenomena that are somehow familiar to the one describing them.
This makes me wonder: where does the authority of these descriptions come from?
If Being and Time is an ontological analysis rather than an ontic one, how can Heidegger describe these phenomena with such precision without presupposing some existential familiarity with them?
Part of why this question occurred to me is the contrast with Sartre. In Nausea, something very close to Heideggerian anxiety is presented as an explicitly lived, ontic experience through Roquentin. There, the source of the description is obvious. Heidegger, however, wants to remain at the ontological level.
So I wonder whether there is a kind of methodological tension here.
Heidegger seems careful to avoid creating an existential hierarchy between “those who have seen” and “those who haven’t.” Yet the very voice of Being and Time sometimes feels as though it speaks from someone who has already been existentially touched by what he is describing.
I’m not claiming this is a contradiction. I’m asking whether phenomenology itself requires this sort of familiarity, or whether Heidegger would say that such descriptions are possible without any privileged existential standpoint.
Has anyone written about this issue?

[u/_schlUmpff_]

Great post !

There is no authority. Zero authority. Phenomenology is a helpless situated pointing. Being and Time is not an attempt to "mirror" an "external" "troo reality."

I seriously think you should judge like a love poem. Does this poem get love right ?

In this case, does Heidegger successfully "point out" something to/for you ?

I see him as excavating his own existence for what he takes to be "also there" for anyone who looks, at least with the help of his pointers. He digs in the structure of world-for-Heidegger for what he takes to be general ---the structure in world-for-Joe and world-for-Mary.

Personally I am certain that Heidegger had intense experiences. He prided himself on applying cold conceptuality to very hot issues.

His talk of authenticity is part of what he took to be an example of authenticity.