In Heidegger's philosophy, "thrownness" (German: "Geworfenheit") refers to the idea that humans are passively "thrown" into existence in the world, without choosing their circumstances or having any control over their "being-in-the-world," essentially meaning we are born into a pre-existing world with a set of conditions and limitations that we did not choose; it signifies the fundamental fact that our existence is not something we actively create but rather something that has already happened to us.
From Google Gemini's overview from prompt "heidegger's concept of thrownness"
... The meaning of “Dasein’s thrownness”
The word ‘thrown’ means to be put roughly and abruptly in a place, or to be sent suddenly into a particular state or condition. Heidegger’s notion of the thrownness of Dasein into the world must start from this brief definition.
We find ourselves, and are always found by others, already sent into and dwelling in a place and a condition from which escaping is impossible. This abrupt sending or rough putting means that we cannot choose that into which we were sent or that in which we were put.
That into which we are thrown, without choosing, is the place of our birth, the moment of our birth, our race, religion, history, and culture. That is, that into which we are thrown is our world.
We are also thrown into the impossibility of knowing why we are thrown into this world, this race, religion, history, or culture. Thrownness is thus multiple, for it is not only a thrownness into the world, but also a thrownness into non-knowing and the impossibility of knowing.
Thrownness also means that we did not choose that into which we were sent, yet it forms, shapes, and influences our past, present, and future. That which we did not choose affects our possibilities and impossibilities.
Heidegger calls this involuntary sending, or putting, “thrownness”, and calls the burden that we must carry because of this “thrownness” “facticity”.
“Facticity”
Facticity is the totality of the circumstances in which we find ourselves, or in which we are found, thought together with our own future possibilities that arise from out of these circumstances.
This means that although we find ourselves already thrown into that which we did not choose, we are always faced with the responsibility and possibility of deciding our own path in the midst of this involuntary sending. That is, it is in this non-choosing that a real choosing might occur.
...
From Haitham Abukhadra's 'What Does Heidegger Mean by “Dasein’s Thrownness”?'
We're first brought into existence without consent, then required to pretend we've freely chosen the subsequent framework of obligations, while simultaneously being denied the option to opt out. The options presented after birth — comply, suffer, or (attempt to) die — are portrayed as free choices rather than coercive ultimatums following an initial non-consensual act.
The necessity of reproduction for humanity's continuation may justify bringing people into existence without consent, but it doesn't justify lying about what we've done. Honesty would require acknowledging the potential harm of forced existence and stopping the pretense that subsequent participation is fully voluntary. This pattern of imposed existence followed by demanded gratitude forms the template for all subsequent systems of non-consensual consent.
Recognizing existence as non-consensual would transform our approach to those who struggle. The current narrative enforces a cruel paradox: "You have been given a gift by being born, you should be grateful, and if you don't thrive, it's your fault for not working hard enough." This framing conveniently obscures systemic inequalities, luck's enormous role in outcomes, and the reality that many people are born with traits or into circumstances that make flourishing nearly impossible. A more honest perspective acknowledges that people are brought into existence without consent and coerced to participate in ways that often serve others' interests. This truth creates a moral obligation: if society has a vested interest in people's existence and demands their participation, it bears responsibility toward them — especially those who cannot meet its demands despite genuine effort. When we stop pretending that everyone freely consented to the game and its rules, compassion rather than judgment becomes the appropriate response to suffering.
From Non-Consenual Consent by Alex Stein's
Please Note: This site meshes with the long pre-existing Principia Cybernetica website (PCw). Parts of this site links to parts of PCw. Because PCw was created long ago and by other people, we used web annotations to add links from parts of PWc to this site and to add notes to PCw pages. To be able to see those links and notes, create a free Hypothes.is↗ account, log in and search for "user:CEStoicism".
