Note I have always ensure I maintain a high degree of intellectual integrity not like Iambigous who is like a loose rocket out of control in space and going no where.
I have read Dreyfus -Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Time, Division I,
note this from Dreyfus [one of the more popular Heideggerian];
In bending over backward to avoid the Sartre/Follesdal mistake of identifying Dasein with the conscious subject central to Husserlian phenomenology, interpreters such as John Haugeland [a student of Dreyfus’] have claimed that Dasein is not to be understood as an individual person at all.6
Dasein, according to Haugeland, is a mass term. People, General Motors, and Cincinnati are all cases of Dasein. While Haugeland has presented a well-motivated and well-argued corrective to the almost universal misunderstanding of Dasein as an autonomous, individual subject-a self-sufficient source of all meaning and intelligibility-Haugeland’s interpretation runs up against many passages that make it clear that for Heidegger Dasein designates exclusively entities like each of us, that is, individual persons.
For example, “Because Dasein has in each case mineness one must always use a personal pronoun when one addresses it: ‘I am,’ ‘you are’” (68) [42].The best way to understand what Heidegger means by Dasein is to think of our term “human being,” which can refer to a way of being that is characteristic of all people or to a specific person-a human being. -page 14
I believe Dreyfus’ weakness is his focus / emphasis on merely on Division I and the above very narrow view but not fully on the whole book. It is very unfortunate Dreyfus has influenced a high proportion of his student from the University of California, Berkeley, and the public from his books into the wrong take which has effected society.
There are many statements and contexts that indicate Heidegger in BT did not intend ‘Dasein’ to represent the individual person and especially his/her specific life issues. This is why Heidegger avoided the term “Mensch” i.e. ‘man’ or human being.
The above has led the Heideggerian community into two major camps.
Heidegger’s philosophy has many useful bits but one must understand the basic grounds thoroughly and note the limitations to avoid pitfalls [falling into holes].
One limitation is, for Heidegger, to be ‘positive’ is to express the ‘good’ [authentic] path and he provided certain fundamental principles but he did not go into sufficient thorough details and fundamentals on ‘what is good’ and how to practice ‘good.’
It due to the above limitation and narrow approach [without much wisdom] that Heidegger ended as an active Nazi member.
Kant’s own philosophy [Moral and Ethics - e.g. re respecting basic human dignity] would definitely prevent Kant from joining a demented nationalist party like the Nazi Party.