dostal - beyong being. heidegger´s plato

8/20/2019 dostal - Beyong being. Heidegger´s Plato

1/29

Journal of the History of Philosophy, Volume 23, Number 1, January

1985, pp. 71-98 (Article)

DOI: 10.1353/hph.1985.0001

For additional information about this article

Access provided by Universidad Complutense de Madrid (2 Sep 2015 13:11 GMT)

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hph/summary/v023/23.1dostal.html

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hph/summary/v023/23.1dostal.htmlhttp://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hph/summary/v023/23.1dostal.html


2/29

B eyon d B eing : H eidegger s

Plato

R O B ER T J . D O S TA L

FoR MARTIN HEIDEGGER METAPHYSICS is P la to ni sm ? He id eg ge r' s att ack on

metaphysics is equivalently an attack on Platonism. Brief comments about

Plato are not un co mm on in Heidegger 's published works, but there is only

one published essay devoted exclusively to a text of P l a t c r - - P l a t o s D o c t r i n e o f

T r u t h . ~

This essay's principal thesis is that Plato transformed the notion of

t ru th f rom unconcea lmen t

( U n v e r b o r g e n h e i t )

to correctness. Though this was

written at a time (193o/31) when Heidegger's thought was making the famed

and cont roverted turn ( K e h r e ) , the critique of Plato remains essentially the

same th ou gh ou t He ideg ger 's work. Th er e is, of course, the late concession in

The End of Philosophy and the Task of Thinki ng that the assert ion about

the essential t ra nsfor mation of t ruth [in Plato] . . . fro m unconcea lment to

corr ectn ess i s . . . unte nabl e. ' '3 But, as we will see below, this does not alter

Heidegger 's unrelent ing cri t ique of Plato.

Unlike other aspects of Heidegger's work, his Plato critique has not

elicited widespread discussion, presumably because he himself wrote so

little on Plato. Th e best responses to Hei degg er' s essay on Plato have come

from those close to and sympathet ic with Heidegger 's work yet unsympa-

thetic with his Plato interpretation. It was perhaps the sharp criticism of

' In the lecture Das Ende der Philosophie und die Aufgabe des Denkens Heidegger

claims: Durch die ganze Geschichte der Philosophie hindurch bleibt Platons Denken in abge-

wandelten Gestalten massgebend. Die Metaphysik ist Platonismus. This lecture is published in

Zur Sache des Denkens

(Ttibingen: Niemeyer, 1969), 63; in English translation by Joan Stam-

baugh,

O n T i m e a n d B e i n g

(New York: Harper & Row, 1972), 57. Heidegger makes the same

claim in Nietzsche (Pfullingen: Neske, 1961), ~:2~.

'~ This essay was first published in 1942. In 1947 it was published in book form with the

Letter on Humanism. It is cited here from Wegmarken (Frankfurt: Klostermann, 1967). Though

the essay has been translated, all translations used here are my own. Hereafter it is referred to

as PL.

3 Zur Sache des Denkens, 78; On Time and Being, 7o.

[7 ]


3/29

7 9 J O U R N A L O F T H E H I S T O R Y O F P H I L O S O P H Y 2 3 : 1 J A N U A R Y 1 9 8 5

P a u l F r i e d l a n d e r m o r e t h a n a n y o t h e r t h a t m o t i v a t e d H e i d e g g e r ' s la te c o n -

c e s s io n ? F r i e d l a n d e r h a d b e e n a c o l l e ag u e o f H e i d e g g e r a t M a r b u r g a n d a

m e m b e r o f th e G r a e c u m in w h i ch H e i d e g g e r p a r t ic i p a te d a t a t im e w h e n

H e i d e g g e r ' s P l a t o c r i t i q u e w a s t a k i n g s h a p e . 5 A n o t h e r n o t a b l e c ri ti c w a s

G e r h a r d K r i i g e r, a s t u d e n t o f H e i d e g g e r a t M a r b u r g . 6 H e c ri ti ci ze d H e i d e g -

g e r, j u s t a s F ri ed l ~i n de r h a d d o n e b e f o r e a n d a s S t a n le y R o s e n ( a s t u d e n t o f

L e o S tr au s s, a n o t h e r s t u d e n t o f H e i d e g g e r a t M a r b u r g ) h a s d o n e m o r e

r e c e n tl y , f o r H e i d e g g e r ' s n e g l e c t o f t h e o n t o l o g ic a l o n b e h a l f o f t h e ep i-

s t e m o l o g i c a l i n P l a t o . 7

T h e m o s t c o m p e l l i n g r e s p o n s e t o H e i d e g g e r ' s r e a d i n g o f P la to , h o w e v e r ,

h as b e e n t h a t o f H a n s - G e o r g G a d a m e r - - a n o t h e r M a r b u r g s t u d e n t o f H e i-

d e g g e r . T h o u g h G a d a m e r a l m o s t e n t i re l y fo r e g o e s t a k in g d i r ec t i ss u e w i th

H e i d e g g e r , h is o w n l i fe - l o n g w o r k o n P l a t o c o n s t i t u t e s a c h a l l e n g e t o H e i -

d e g g e r ' s v i e w o f P l a to . G a d a m e r a t te s t s to t hi s w h e n h e w r i t e s o f h is o w n

P l a t o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n : B e h i n d it a ll, h o w e v e r , s t o o d t h e c o n s t a n t p r o v o c a t i o n

w h i c h H e i d e g g e r ' s o w n p a t h w a y o f t h o u g h t m e a n s f o r m e - - i n p a r ti c ul ar h is

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f P l a t o a s t h e d e c i s iv e s t e p in t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e f o r g e t f u l -

n e s s o f B e i n g o f 'm e t a p h y s i c a l t h i n k i n g . ' s A l a r g e t h e si s o f G a d a m e r ' s

4 F r i e d l ~ in d e r o b je c t s t o H e i d e g g e r ' s m i n i m a l i z a t i o n o f t h e o n t o l o g i c a l a s p e c t o f t h e G o o d .

H e c r it ic i z es a s w e l l H e i d e g g e r ' s e t y m o l o g y o f

aletheia

as

a-lethe.

H e p o i n t s o u t t h a t P l a to h i m s e l f

d i s cu s s e s i t s e t y m o l o g y i n t h e

Cratylus

a n d r e n d e r s i t

ale-theia,

' d i v i n e w h i r l w i n d . ' H e a r g u e s

f u r t h e r t h a t n o w h e r e i n t h e P r e - S o c r a t i c s o r i n H o m e r i s aletheia u s e d i n H e i d e g g e r ' s s e n se o f

Unverborgenheit.

S e e C h a p t e r a i i n v o l. 1 o f

Platon

(B e r l i n : DeGru y t e r , 1 9 5 4 ) .

H e i d e g g e r , w h o s e l d o m r e s p o n d s t o c ri t ic i sm , r e s p o n d e d v e r y b r ie f l y t o F r i ed l ~ in d e r' s c r it i-

c i s m b y w a y o f a q u e s t i o n i n t h e l e c t u r e H e g e l u n d d i e G r i e c h e n , ( 1 95 8 ) p u b li s h e d i n Wegmar-

ken,

2 71 . H e i s n o t y e t r e a d y h e r e t o m a k e t h e c o n c e s s io n h e m a k e s s ix y e ar s l a t e r in t h e l e c t u re

D a s E n d e d e r P h i lo s o p h i e u n d d i e A u f g a b e d e s D e n k e n s . T h e r e H e i d e g g e r a d m i ts : I t is

o f t e n a n d j u s t i f i a b l y p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e w o r d

alethes

is a l r e a d y u s e d b y H o m e r o n l y i n t h e

verba

dicendi, i n s t a t em en t an d t h u s i n t h e s en s e o f co r r ec t n e s s an d r e l iab i l it y , n o t i n t h e s en s e o f

u n c o n c e a i m e n t

(On Time and Being,

7 o ;

Zur Sache des Denkens,

77)-

S e e W a l t e r B i e m e l ' s b i o g r a p h i c a l s t u d y ,

Martin Heidegger

( N e w Y o r k : H a r c o u r t B r a c e

Jov an ov i ch , 1976) , 15 .

6 G e r h a r d K r 0 g e r , M a r t in H e i d e g g e r un d d e r H u m a n i sm u s ,

Studia Philosophica,

9 (1949):

9 3 - 1 ~ 9 . K r O g e r ' s p r i n c i p a l w o r k o n P l a t o i s Einsicht u nd Leidenschaft: Das Wesen des Platonischen

Denkens,

4 t h e d . ( F r a n k f u r t : K l o s t e r m a n n , 1 97 3) .

7 S t a n l e y R o s e n , H e i d e g g e r ' s I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f P l a to ,

Essays in Metaphysics

(Un i v e r s i t y

P a rk : P en n s y l v an i a S t a t e Un i v e r s i t y P res s , 1 9 7 o) , 5 1 - 7 8 . S ee al s o ch a p t e r 5 o f hi s

Nihilism

( N e w

Ha v en : Ya l e Un i v e r s i t y P res s , 1 9 69 ).

8 H a n s G e o r g G a d a m e r , Die ldee des Guten zwischen Plato und A ristoteles ( H e i d e l b e r g : W i n t e r ,

1 9 7 8 ) , 7 . T h i s i s n o w b e i n g t r an s l a t ed i n t o E n g l i s h b y P . C h r i s t o p h e r S m i t h . He re an d e l s ewh e re

G a d a m e r i n d i c a te s t h a t t h e i n i t i al k e y t o h is r e a d i n g o f P l a to w a s t h e r e j e c t i o n o f t h e A r i s t o te l i a n

c r i t i q u e o f P l a t o ' s Ideenlehre b y P a u l N a t o r p a s w e ll a s by J~ S t e n z e l a n d N . H a r t m a n n . G a d -

a m e r h a s p u b l i s h e d m a n y a r t ic l e s o n P l at o . M o s t o f t h e s e h a v e b e e n c o l l e c t e d i n tw o v o l um e s :

Platos dialektische Ethik ( H a m b u r g : M e i n e r , 1 9 8 3 ) , a n d Kleine Schriften 3 (T i~ b ingen : J . C . B .

M o h r , 1 97 2 ). S o m e o f t h e s e h a v e b e e n c o l l e c t e d a n d t r a n s la t e d i n t o E n g l i s h b y P . C h r i s t o p h e r

S m i t h i n

Dialogue and Dialectic

(New H av e n : Y a l e Un i v e r s i t y P re s s, 1 9 8 o ) S ee a l s o P l a t o an d

H e i d e g g e r ,

The Quest ion of Being

(Un i v e r s i t y P a rk : P en n s y l v a n i a S t a t e Un i v e r s i t y P res s , 1 9 7 8) ,

4 5 - 6 3 .


4/29

H E I D E G G E R ' S P L A T O

7

P l a to i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is t h e p r o x i m i t y o f P l a to a n d A r is to t le . G a d a m e r w o u l d

d e f u s e m u c h o f A r is to t le ' s c r i ti q u e b y s h o w i n g n o t o n l y its i n a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s

b u t a l s o th e s o u r c e s o f A r is t o t le ' s o w n d o c t r i n e i n P l at o . T h i s i s r e l e v a n t t o

t h e m a t t e r a t h a n d s in c e G a d a m e r t h e r e b y c o u n t e r s b o t h H e i d e g g e r ' s a c ce p -

t a n c e o f A r i s t o tl e 's c r i t iq u e o f P l a to a n d P a u l N a t o r p ' s d e f e n s e o f P la t o a n d

s h a r p c r i t iq u e o f A r i s t o tl e . H e i d e g g e r ' s o w n v ie w , I s u g g e s t , c a n in p a r t b e

u n d e r s t o o d a s a r e s p o n s e to N a t o r p a n d th e N e o - K a n t i a n P la to .

W i t h t h e m a j o r t h es is o f t h i s a l m o s t c o n s e n s u a l c r i t iq u e o f H e i d e g g e r ' s

P l a to i n t e r p r e t a t i o n I a m l a rg e l y in a g r e e m e n t . 9 W h a t I m e a n t o d o h e r e i s

t o e x p a n d t h e c o n t e x t w i t hi n w h i c h H e i d e g g e r ' s P la t o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s h o u l d

b e c o n s i d e r e d . F i rs t o f a ll, t h e t h e n p r e v a i li n g N e o - K a n t i a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f

P l a to , e s p e c i a l ly t h a t o f N a t o r p , w i ll b e s e e n t o es t a b li s h i n p a r t t h e f r a m e -

w o r k w i t h i n w h i c h t h e e a r l y H e i d e g g e r c a m e t o P l a t o . S e c o n d l y , H e i d e g g e r ' s

P l at o e s sa y s h o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d w i th i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f

H e i d e g g e r ' s o w n t h o u g h t . T h e r e c e n tl y p u b l i s h e d le c tu r e s f r o m H e i d e g g e r ' s

M a r b u r g p e r i o d p r o v i d e u s w i th a v ie w o f th e e a rl y d e v e l o p m e n t o f his

u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f P l at o . T h e y e x h i b i t a f u n d a m e n t a l c o n t i n u i ty w i th th e l at e r

P l a t o e s s ay . T h e y a l s o p r o v i d e , a t l e a s t a t f ir s t g l a n c e , a k i n d o f p u z z le : w h a t

H e i d e g g e r s o p r o v o c a t iv e l y i g n o r e s i n t h e P l a t o e s sa y is th e f o c u s o f h is

a t t e n t i o n i n t h e M a r b u r g l e c t u r e s , viz ., t h e c o n t r o v e r s i a l s t a t e m e n t in t h e

Republic

t h a t t h e G o o d is b e y o n d b e i n g

epeke ina tes ousias)

[ 5 o 9 B ] . A s t h o s e

l e c t u r e s w o u l d h a v e i t, w h a t H e i d e g g e r s e e k s f o r t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f h is

p r o j e c t is a n a d e q u a t e t r e a t m e n t o f t h e epekeina. A n d f u r t h e r , t h e t e r m

epekeina n a m e s t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f h is o n t o l o g ic a l p r o j e c t i n t h e tit le ' m e t o n -

t o l o g y . ' T h e P l a t o e s s a y w a s w r i t t e n s o m e t w o o r t h r e e y e a r s la t e r a t a t i m e

( 19 3 o /3 1 ) w h e n H e i d e g g e r w a s w r i ti n g On the Essence of Truth Vo m Wesen der

Wahrheit), w h o s e b a s ic t h e m e is t h e s a m e a s t h e e s sa y o n P l a t o - - t r u t h .

T h o u g h t h e ' t u r n ' i n H e i d e g g e r ' s t h o u g h t is i m p o s s i b le to f ix w i t h r e s p e c t to

a s in g l e te x t , I s u g g e s t , c o n t r a r y t o H a n n a h A r e n d t , t h a t t h e s e e s s a y s a r e

c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s w i th a t l ea s t t h e b e g i n n in g o f t h e t u r n a n d t h e a b a n d o n -

m e n t o f t h e o n t o l o g ic a l p r o j e c t o f t h e M a r b u r g p e r i o d , t h e p r o je c t o f

Being

and Time.~~A c c o r d i n g ly , t h e p r o b l e m o f tr u t h a s H e i d e g g e r g r a p p l e d w i th it

9 T h e m o s t r e c e n t a d d i t i o n t o t h is c r it ic a l c o n s e n s u s is W i l l ia m A . G a l s to n ' s H e i d e g g e r ' s

P l a t o : A C r i t i q u e o f

Plato's Doctrine of Tru th, Philosophical Forum,

1 3 ( 1 9 8 2 ), 3 7 1 - 8 4 . H e c r it i-

c iz es H e i d e g g e r ' s e s s a y m u c h l ik e t h e c r i ti c is m s m e n t i o n e d a b o v e f o r i n a d e q u a t e l y p r o v i d i n g t h e

c o n t e x t f o r .t h e a l le g o r y o f t h e c a v e ( f o r G a l s t o n , t h e p o l it ic a l a s p e c t i s t h e m o s t s i g n i f i c a n t p a r t

o f t h e c o n t e x t i g n o r e d ) , f o r f o c u s i n g o n e s i d e d l y o n t h e e p i s t em o l o g i c a l i ss u e , a n d f o r i g n o r i n g

t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e i d e a s a n d t h e G o o d . G a l s t o n d o e s n o t a d d r e s s t h e l a r g e r c o n t e x t o f

t h i s e s s a y i n H e i d e g g e r ' s w o r k .

~o S e e t h e c h a p t e r H e i d e g g e r ' s W i l l- n o t -t o - w i ll i n V o l u m e T w o o f Li fe o f the M ind ( N e w

Y o r k : H a r c o u r t B r a c e J o v a n o v i c h , 1 9 7 8 ) . S h e p l a c e s w h a t s h e c a ll s t h e r e v e r s a l b e t w e e n

v o l u m e s 1 a n d 2 o f Nietzsche (t 9 3 9) . I d o n o t d e n y t h a t t h e r e is e v i d e n c e o f t h e t u r n h e r e , b u t I

f o ll o w H e i d e g g e r h i m s e l f a n d d a t e t h e b e g i n n i n g o f th e t u r n w i th Vom Wesen der Wahrheit

( 1 9 3 o ) .


5/29

7

J O U R N A L O F T H E H I S T O R Y O F P H I L O S O P H Y 2 3 : 1 J A N U A R Y 1 9 8 5

a t th i s ti m e i s e x t r e m e l y r e l e v a n t t o a n y u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e P l a to e s sa y .

H e r e t o o t h e M a r b u r g l e c t u r e s a l lo w u s to se e m o r e c l e a r ly th e d i f fi c u lt ie s

H e i d e g g e r f a c e d i n t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f h is p r o je c t . O n e o f t h e p r i m a r y s h o a ls

u p o n w h i c h i t f o u n d e r s is t h e a t t e m p t t o e s ta b li sh a n o n t o l o g i c a l n o t i o n o f

t r u t h i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e p r e v a i l i n g e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l v ie w . T h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n

o f th is a t t e m p t b r i n g s u s to a n o t h e r p u z z l e - - H e i d e g g e r ' s l ac k o f r e c o g n i ti o n

o f t h e p r o x i m i t y o f h i s o w n p o s i t i o n t o t h a t o f P la t o . P la t o , I s u g g e s t , w a s

n e i t h e r a r e a li s t n o r a n i d e a l i s t a s H e i d e g g e r c o n s t r u e s t h e s e p o s i t io n s . I a m

s u g g e s t i n g f u r t h e r , t h a t P l a t o 's n o t i o n o f t h e i d e a s - - - w h a t e v e r t h e st a g e o f

d e v e l o p m e n t - - i s n o t a d e q u a t e l y c a p t u r e d b y e i th e r a t r a n s c e n d e n t o t h e r

w o r l d v ie w o r a N e o - K a n t i a n t r a n s c e n d e n t a l v ie w . L i k e H e i d e g g e r , P la to

w a s c o n c e r n e d l es s w i t h t h e e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l c r it e r ia f o r t r u t h t h a n w i th t h e

o n t o l o g i c a l c o n d i t io n s f o r t r u t h . O u r r e c o g n i t io n o f t hi s p r o x i m i t y h e lp s

e x p l a i n w h y a t e a c h e r w i t h s u c h a s h o r t - s ig h t e d i n t e r p r e t a t io n o f P l at o

s h o u l d h a v e s t u d e n t s w h o a r e s u c h p e r c e p t i v e r e a d e r s o f P l at o.

T h e i m m e d i a t e c o n t e x t f o r th e a p p r o a c h o f H e i d e g g e r t o t h e a ge -o l d c o n-

f li ct o f A r i s t o t e li a n i s m a n d P l a t o n i s m is th e c o n t r o v e r s y o v e r t h is c o n fl ic t i n

W e i m a r G e r m a n y . T h i s w a s t h e ti m e w h e n H e i d e g g e r ta u g h t a t M a r b u r g

( 1 9 2 2 - 2 8 ) a n d c o u n t e d a m o n g h is s t u d e n t s G a d a m e r , K r ii g e r, a n d St ra u s s

t o g e t h e r w i th J a c o b K l e in , K a r l L O w i th , a n d A r e n d t a m o n g o t h e r s . H i s c ol-

l e a g u e s i n c l u d e d F r i e d l~ i n d e r a n d N a t o r p , t h e e m i n e n t N e o - K a n t i a n . '~ T h i s

w a s th e t i m e w h e n t h e r e i g n o f N e o - K a n t i a n i s m f a l te r e d in a c a d e m i c p h i-

l o s o p h y i n G e r m a n y . T h i s d e t h r o n e m e n t w a s d u e in la r ge p a r t t o t h e p h e n o -

m e n o l o g i c a l m o v e m e n t l ed p r im a r i ly b y E d m u n d H u s s e r l b u t a ls o b y M a x

S c h e l e r a n d , n o t l e a s t, b y H e i d e g g e r ( w h i c h is n o t t o sa y t h a t t h e t u r n t o

H e g e l a n d M a r x b y p h i lo s o p h e r s l ik e L u kfic s a n d H o r k h e i m e r w a s u n im p o r -

t an t) . T h e q u a r r e l b e t w e e n N e o - K a n t ia n i s m a n d p h e n o m e n o l o g y w as n o t

o n l y s y s t e m a t i c b u t h i s t o r i c a l a s w e l l. T h e b a t t l e w a s c a r r i e d , e s p e c i a l l y b y

H e i d e g g e r , t o t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e cl as si ca l p h i l o s o p h i c a l te x ts . T h e

m o s t i m p o r t a n t t e x t w a s t h e w o r k o f K a n t , t h e N e o - K a n t i a n i n t e rp r e t a t io n

S e e G a d a m e r ' s e v o c a t iv e t r e a t m e n t o f p h i l o s o p h y i n M a r b u r g i n t h e 1 9 2 o' s i n h is

Philosophische Lehrjahre ( F r a n k f u r t : K l o s t e r m a n n , 1 97 7 ). G a d a m e r a d o p t s a s a m o t t o f o r h is

o w n a u t o b i o g r a p h y t h e v e r y m o t t o t h a t N a t o r p c h o s e fo r h is o w n : D e n o b i s i ps is s i l e m u s - -

w h i c h i s t h e m o t t o K a n t b o r r o w e d f r o m F r a n c is B a c o n f o r t h e Crit ique of Pu re R eoaon G a d -

a m e r c o n c l u d e s h i s r e c o l l e c ti o n o f N a t o r p a s fo l lo w s : L a s s e n S i e r e ic h m i t e i n e r p e r s O n l i c h e n

E r i n n e r u n g s c h li e ss e n : w e n n w i r j u n g e n L e u t e m i t d e m p ie t~ it lo s en B li c k d e r J u g e n d d e n

k l e i n e n e i s g r a u e n M a n n [ N a t o r p ] m i t d e n g r o s s e n a u f g e r i s s e n e n A u g e n , i n s e i n e m L o d e n c a p e

y o n w a h r h a f t m o n u m e n t a l e r U n s c h e i n b a r k e it , de s 6 f te r e n i n d e r B e g l e i tu n g d e s j u n g e n H e i-

d e g g e r d e r R o t e n b u r g h e r a u f w a n d e r n s a h e n ~ d e r j i~ n g e re d e m e h r w i i r d i g e n G r ei s r es p ek t-

v o ll z u g e w a n d t , a b e r m e i s t b e i d e i n l a n g e n , t i e fe n S c h w e i g en , d a n n r i i h t e u n s i n s oi c h er

s t u m m e n Z w i e s p r a c h e z w i s c h e n d e n G e n e r a t i o n e n e tw a s v o n D u n k e l u n d H e l l ig k e i t d e r E i n e n

P h i l o s o p h i e a n ( 6 7 - 6 8 ) .


6/29

H E I D E G G E R S P L A T O

7

of which was then fundamental ly chal lenged not only by Heidegger but by

Scheler, Hartmann, Heimsoeth, and others.

But also of importance was the reading of Aristot le and Plato. The pre-

dom in an t Neo -Ka nti an view was to dismiss Aristotle on behal f of Plato.

Gad ame r reminds us that He rm an n Cohe n used to handily dispose of Aris-

totle by calling him an apotheca ry. '~ More impo rta nt for the inter pretat ion

of Plato at this time in Ger ma ny was the Plato inter preta tion of Natorp,

whose

P l a t o s I d e e n l e h r e

(Plato's Doctrine of Ideas) provided

t h e

Neo-Kantian

interpretat ion of Plato? 3

Natorp argued two major theses which were closely related: first, the

pro ximi ty of Plato to Kant, and, secondly, the idealistic stance of both Plato

and Kant. The subtitle of the work is

A n

Int rodu ctio n to Idealism, by

which Natorp means Plato 's introduction to the t ranscendental ideal ism of

Kant. For N ator p, Kant in fact accomplis hed what he said of himself with

respect to Plato: w e understand him bet ter than he has understood himself

(A3 t4/ B37o )? 4 Plato's doctrine of ideas is inte rpr eted by way of Kant's

categories and t rans cend enta l ideas. Nato rp insists again and again that the

truth of that which is ( t a o n t a ) . . , is in the positings of thought ( D e n k s e t z -

u n g e n ) ~PI 133 ). Th e ideas are pur e objects of tho ugh t ( r e i n e D e n k o b j e k t e )

and the pro per possession of consciousness ( e i g e n e r B e s i t z d e s B e w u s s t s e i n s )

(PI t34 ). Bein g itself is finally positin g in gen era l

( S e t z u n g i i b e r h a u p t )

(PI

335)- L o g o s is interprete d as the posi ting of jud gme nt. As the promine nce of

the term positing ( S e t z u n g ) in these few but representative citations sug-

gests, Natorp's Kantianism was not unaffected by the idealist critique of

Kant? 5

,2 Gadamer, Martin Heidegger und die Marburger Theologie, Kleine Schrif ten 1 (Tiibin-

gen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1967), 84, translated by David E. Linge in PhilosophicalHermeneutics (Berke-

ley: University of California Press, 1976), 2ol.

,3 Paul Natorp,

Platos Ideenlehre

(Leipzig: Meiner, 1921), first published in ~9o2, hereafter

cited in the text as PI. The second edition, which left the text untouched but added notes and

an appendix, substantially modified the interpretation, rendering Plato less Kantian and more

Plotinian.

~4 In the Preface to Platos Ideenlehre Natorp writes that the introduction to Plato is the

education into philosophy . . . . Philosophy, however, according to its strictest historical concept

is nothing other than idealism (V). Kant is for him the highest fulfillment of the philosophical

tradition. In the appendix added to the second edition Natorp writes defensively Whoever

completely holds a Marburger capable of wishing to show that Plato was a Kantian according to

Marburg observance falsifies the entire meaning of the philosophical effort, which one honors

with the title 'Marburg school.' In the same context he asserts: Whoever can overlook the

elements (Ziige) in Plato that look forward to Kant and those in Kant that look back to Plato

must have understood them both equally poorly (462).

,5 Natorp was aware of the importance of post-Kantian idealism for his own Kantianism.

Gadamer comments that the root of Natorp's Neo-Kantian view of Plato lies in Hegel's dialectic

of the verkehrten Welt Which thinks of the supersensible world of the understanding as a

tranquil realm of laws (ruhiges Reich von Gesetzen). Thereby the Platonic idea is understood

through the modern notion of a law of nature. In

PhilosophischeLehrjahre,

66.


7/29

7 6 J O U R N A L O F T H E H I S T O R Y O F P H I L O S O P H Y 2 3 : 1 J A N U A R Y 1 9 8 5

I n a n y c a s e , f o r N a t o r p t h e s i n g l e i s s u e t h a t t i e s t o g e t h e r h i s r e a d i n g o f

t h e P l a t o n i c d i a l o g u e s i s t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r t h e i d e a s o f P l a t o a r e to b e

u n d e r s t o o d i n a c c o r d w i t h A r i s t o t l e ' s c r i t i q u e a s c o n s t i t u t i n g a s e c o n d in d e -

p e n d e n t r e a l m o f e n t i t i e s , a

h u p e r o u r a n i o s t o p o s ,

o r w h e t h e r t h e i d e a s a r e to

b e u n d e r s t o o d r a t h e r a s p u r e o b j e c t s o f t h o u g h t a s t h e a b o v e c i t a t i o n s

s u g g e s t . A s t h e l a t t e r , t h e P l a t o n i c d o c t r i n e o f i d e a s i n t r o d u c e s i d e a l i s m in t o

W e s t e r n t h o u g h t . 16 T h e A r i s t o t e l i a n t r a n s c e n d e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e P l a -

t o n i c i d e a s i s t o b e r e j e c t e d f o r a t r a n s c e n d e n t a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . '7 B e c a u s e i t

i s s o i m p o r t a n t t o f i n d th e t r a n s c e n d e n t a l i n P l a t o w h e r e o f t e n t h e t r a d i t i o n

h a d f o u n d t h e t r a n s c e n d e n t , e v e n t h e f a m e d s t a t e m e n t o f t h e

R e p u b l i c

t h a t

t h e G o o d is b e y o n d b e i n g g i v e s N a t o r p l i t t l e p a u s e . W h a t m i g h t a p p e a r t o

b e b e y o n d t h o u g h t , n o n e t h e l e s s l ie s i n t h e r e g i o n , i n t h e g e n u s o f t h e

t h i n k a b l e . ' ' ' 8 G i v e n t h i s c o r r e c t i o n o f t h e m i s t a k e n t r a d i t i o n a l a n d A r i s t o t e -

l i a n v ie w o f P l a t o , t h e t r a n s c e n d e n t a l P l a t o c a n b e e n l i s t e d a s a n i d e a l i s t i n

t h e q u a r r e l b e t w e e n i d e a l i s m a n d r e a l i s m .

T h e e a r l y H e i d e g g e r u n d e r s t o o d t h e p r o b l e m o f i n t e r p r e t i n g P l a t o i n

p r e c i s e l y t h e t e r m s s e t d o w n b y N a t o r p . E i t h e r t h e i d e a s r e s i d e in a p l a c e

b e y o n d t h e h e a v e n s o r i n t r a n s c e n d e n t a l s u b je c t i v i t y . H e i d e g g e r a c -

k n o w l e d g e s i n

O n t h e E s s e n ce o f G r o u n d

0 9 2 9 ) , p e r h a p s i n d e f e r e n c e t o

N a t o r p ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , t h a t t h e t e n d e n c y t o w a r d t h e l a t t e r i s p r e f i g u r e d

( v o r g e b i l d e t ) i n P l a t o . '9 D e s p i t e t h is p r e f i g u r a t i o n , h o w e v e r , H e i d e g g e r a g r e e s

w i t h A r i s t o t l e ' s c r i t i q u e o f t h e t r a n s c e n d e n t c h a r a c t e r o f t h e i d e a s in P l a t o .

6 P I V I I :

A b e r d e n B e g r i f f d e s I d e a l i sm u s h a b e n w i r g e m e i n , u n d d i e G r u n d a n s ic h t , d as s

d e r I d ea l i sm u s , d e r y o n d en I d ee n P la to s , u n d n i ch t e twa Be r k e ley s , b en an n t i st , au ch in P l a to s

Ide en leh re se ine ers te , u rspr t in g l ichs te , fas t muss m an sage n unmissverst~ind lichste Auspr~ig-

u n g g e f u n d e n h a t .

,7 Ac co r d in g to N a to r p Ar i s to t l e ' s c r i t i q u e r e s ts o n an ea r ly an d u n d ev e lo p ed n o t io n o f t h e

id eas a s p r e sen ted , f o r ex am p le , i n t h e

Phaedo.

Ref e r r in g to t h em th e r e a s

auto hath ' auto

(66A,

7 8 D, to o B ) , P l a to g iv e s g r o u n d f o r su ch an u n d e r s t an d in g . A ssu m in g a d ev e lo p m en ta l v iew o f

P la to n ic d o c t r in e , N a to r p u r g es t h a t t h i s n o t io n is m o r e So c r a t i c t h an P la to n ic. He su m m ar ize s

h i s o wn a r g u m en t a s f o llo ws : W e wi ll s ee h o w h e [ P la to ] in t h e

Theatetus ,

t h e

Phaedo,

t h e

Symposium,

a n d t h e

Republic

co m es s t ep b y s t ep c lo se r t o t h e o v e r co m in g o f t h e t r an scen d en t o n

b eh a l f o f t h e t r an scen d en ta l , i n o r d e r t o ach iev e i t i n t h e

Parmenides

(PI 88) . For Natorp the

t e l l i n g d i a lo g u e i s t h e Parmenides . Aris to t le , accord ing to h is v iew, leaves the p rob lem too ear ly ;

h e l a ck ed . th e n ecessa r y d i a l ec t ic a l p e r se r v e r an ce ( P I 2 2 4) . T h e b as is f o r t h is l ack i s t h e e t e r n a l

in ab i l it y o f d o g m a t i sm to t r an sp o r t i t se l f t o t h e s t a n d p o in t o f c r i ti c a l p h i lo so p h y ( PI 38 5 ).

'~ P I 1 9 1 : Au c h f i i r u n s g ib t es h i e r E in ig es zu v e r wu n d e r n . . . . Ab e r h i e r so l len w i r u n s

g a r e twas d en k en , d a s t i b e r b e id es , d a s Den k en u n d d as g ed ach te Se in h in au s l i eg t . Ab e r d o ch

wied e r u m l i eg t e s im Be r e i ch e , in d e r Ga t tu n g d es Den k b a r en . E l sewh e r e ( P I 4 6 3 ) Na to r p

su g g es t s t h a t t h e

epekeina

o f P l a to f in d s i t s c l ea r f o r m u la t io n in Kan t ' s n o t io n o f t h e t r an scen -

d e n t a l . T h i s r e a d i n g o f t h e

epekeina

i s substan t ia l ly mo dif ied in the no tes (nn . 6 , 14, 16) to the

seco n d ed i t i o n . He r e t h e i d ea s a r e b ey o n d th e d i s t i n c t io n o f t h e su b jec tiv e an d o b jec t iv e ( 52 6 n .

6 ). A n d th e G o o d a scen d s to t h e sp h e r e o f t h e P lo t in i an On e ( 53 2 n . 1 4 ) , wh ich l ie s ab o v e th e

two f o ld co r r e l a t i o n s o f k n o wled g e an d o b jec t o f k n o wled g e , t h eo r y an d p r ac t i c e , an d so o n .

,9 Wegmarken,

5 7. T h i s h a s b een t r an s l a t ed b y T e r r en c e M a l ick u n d e r t h e t i tl e

The Essence of

Reasons

(Evanston : Nor thw este rn U nivers i ty Press , 1969) , 95-


8/29

H E I D E G G E R ' S P L A T O 77

Only later according to Heidegger through the mediation ofChristianity do

t h e i d e a s f i n d t h e i r h o m e i n s u b j e c t iv i ty a n d , f i n a ll y , in t h e w i ll t o p o w e r . W h a t

G a d a m e r , t h e s t u d e n t o f b o th H e i d e g g e r a n d N a t o r p , d o e s i n h is r e c en t w o r k

o n P l a t o is , i n p a r t , t o r e t r i e v e N a t o r p s c r i ti q u e o f A r i s to t le s t r e a t m e n t o f P l a to

t o c o u n t e r H e i d e g g e r s A r i s t o te l ia n c r it iq u e o f P l at o. G a d a m e r s r e t ri ev a l d o e s

n o t , h o w e v e r , c l a i m P l a to o n b e h a l f o f K a n t , a s N a t o r p d i d .

W h a t f u n d a m e n t a l l y is a t s t ak e i n N a t o r p s a n d H e i d e g g e r s r e a d i n g o f

P l a to i s t h e s t a tu s o f t r a n s c e n d e n t a l p h i l o s o p h y . N a t o r p i d e n t if i ed h i s

N e o - K a n t i a n i d e al is t p h i l o s o p h y w i th t r a n s c e n d e n t a l p h i l o s o p h y . T h i s h e

o p p o s e s t o t h e t r a n s c e n d e n t p h i l o s o p h y o f t h e d o g m a t i c A r i st o t el i an t r ad i -

t io n . T h e e a r ly H e i d e g g e r a l so h o p e d t o d e v e l o p a n a p p r o p r i a t e tr a n s c e n -

d e n t a l p h i l o s o p h y , b u t h e o p p o s e d t h e i d ea l is m o f N a t o r p a n d t h e N e o -

K a n t ia n s . W h e r e H e i d e g g e r d i ff e rs f r o m m o s t o f h is c o n t e m p o r a r i e s is

t h a t h e d i d n o t t a k e s i d e s i n t h e i d e a l i s t - r e a l i s t q u a r r e l . H e c r i t i c i z e d b o t h

f a c ti o n s a n d p r o p o s e d a t r a n s c e n d e n t a l p h i l o s o p h y t h a t is n e i t h e r id e a li st

n o r r ea l i st ? ~ H i s f u n d a m e n t a l t h e s i s -- t h a t p h e n o m e n o l o g y is o n t o l o g y - -

a n d h i s c o r r e s p o n d i n g a t t e m p t t o p r o v i d e a n o n t o l o g i c a l in t e r p r e t a t io n o f

K a n t c o n t r i b u t e d t o th e c o n f u s i o n o f t h e i n it ia l r e c e p t i o n o f h is w o rk .

~ ~ I d e a l i s m i s a b r o a d t a r g e t , H e i d e g g e r w o u l d c r i t i c i z e t h e r e b y H u s s e r l a s w e l l , a t l e a s t s o

f a r a s b o t h H u s s e r l a n d N e o - K a n t i a n i s m e s t a b li s h a n u l t i m a t e g r o u n d i n th e t r a n s c e n d e n t a l e go .

H e i d e g g e r i d e n ti f ie s t h e p r i m a r y d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n N e o - K a n t i a n i s m a n d H u s s e r l a s l y in g i n

t h e i r r e s p e c ti v e n o t i o n s o f t r u t h . F o r t h e N e o - K a n t i a n s t r u t h l ie s i n j u d g m e n t . F o r H e i d e g g e r ,

H u s s e r l ' s n o t i o n o f i n t e n t i o n a l it y is a m o r e o r i g i n a r y n o t i o n , o n e t h a t l e ad s t o H e i d e g g e r ' s n w n

n o t i o n o f t r u t h . I n t h is r e g a r d s e e e s p ec ia l ly H e i d e g g e r ' s

Die Grun dproblem e der Phginomenologie,

Gesamtausgabe ( F r a n k f u r t : K l o s t e r m a n n , 1 9 75 ), 2 4 : 9 8 5 - 8 6 ; i n E n g li s h tr a n s l a t io n by A l b e r t

H o f s t a d t e r :

The Basic Pro blems of Phenomenology

( B l o o m i n g t o n : I n d i a n a U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 8'~ ),

S O l . H e r e a f t e r t h e s e w i ll b e c i t ed r e s p e c t i v e ly a s G p a n d B P . I n t h e

Logic

l e c t u r e s o f t 9 ' , 5 / 2 6

Gesamtausgabe 2 1 : 6 o ) H e i d e g g e r s u g g e s t s t h a t H u s s e r l i n i ti a ll y t o o k u p t h e n o t i o n o f i d e a a n d

i d e a l b e i n g i n a P l a t o n i c w a y i n f l u e n c e d b y L o t z e b u t s o o n s a w t h r o u g h i t a n d g a v e i t u p . Y e t i n

t h e s t il l u n p u b l i s h e d Beitri~ge x936-38) H e i d e g g e r a c cu s es p r e - h e r m e n e u t i c al p h e n o m e n o l n g y

o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g t r u t h a s t h e c o r r e c t n e s s o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . S e e O . P 6 g g e le r , H e i d e g g e r s

N e u b e s t i m m u n g d e s P h ~ i n o m e n b e g r i f f s ,

Neu ere En twicklun gen des Phi~nomenbegriffs, Phi~nomeno-

logische For schun gen v o l . 9 ( F r e i b u r g : A l b e r , 1 9 8 o ) , 1 5 5 .

T h e s u g g e s t i o n , t h e n , t h a t H e i d e g g e r ' s c r i t i q u e o f P l a to is a l so a c r i t i q u e o f H u s s e r l i s

a p p r o p r i a t e i n a c e r t a i n w a y , b u t t h e t h e s i s o f D o u g l a s M c G a u g h e y t h a t t h e P l a t o e s s ay is a

r e s p o n s e t o a n e s sa y b y E u g e n F i n k , w h o u s e d t h e c a v e st o ry t o i n t e r p r e t H u s s e r l ' s p h e n o m e n o l -

o g y i s s u re l y w r o n g , f o r F i n k ' s e s sa y ( W a s W i ll d i e P h ~ i n o m e n o l og i e E d m u n d H u s s e r l s ' ) w a s

f i r s t p u b l i s h e d i n 1 9 3 4 Tatwelt 1 o) , t h r e e o r f o u r y e a r s a f t e r H e i d e g g e r w r o t e t h e P l a t o e s sa y .

M c G a u g h e y w a s m i s l e d b y t h e l a t e r p u b l i c a t i o n d a t e o f t h e H e i d e g g e r e ss ay . S ee D o u g l a s

M c G a u g h e y , H u s s e r l a n d H e i d e g g e r o n P l a t o 's C a v e A l le g o r y : A S t u d y o f P h il o s o p h ic a l I n f lu -

e n c e ,

International Philosophical Q uarterly,

1 6 ( 1 9 7 6 ): 3 3 1 - 4 8 .

T h e r e i s a n e x t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t b u t o f t e n u n n o t i c e d c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e

t h o u g h t o f N a t o r p a n d H u s s er l . I n i m p o r t a n t r e vi ew s o f th e Logische Untersuchung en a n d o f t h e

Ideen

N a t o r p p r o c l a i m e d t h e p r o x i m i t y o f t h e i r p o s it io n s . Is o K e r n a r g u e s t h a t t h e s in g l e m o s t

i m p o r t a n t s o u r c e o f H u s s e r l 's d e v e l o p m e n t a f t e r 1 9 2 o, i.e ., H u s s e r l 's d e v e l o p m e n t o f g e n e ti c

p h e n o m e n o l o g y , w a s th e w o r k o f N a t o r p . S e e I s o K e r n ,

Husserl und Kant

( D e n H a a g : N i j h o f f ,

1 9 6 4 ) , e s p e c ia l l y 3 2 6 - 7 3 .


9/29

78 J O U R N L O F T H E H I ST O R Y O F PH I L O SO PH Y 23:1 J N U R Y 198 5

The transcendental and phenomenological status of his work as well as his

dependence on Kant seemed to make him an idealist. Yet his attack on any

philosophy of consciousness, be it Neo-Kantian or Husserlian, and his re-

peated invocation of Aristotle in an explicitly ontological project made him

appear to be a realist. In his discussion of idealism and realism in B e i n g a n d

T i m e Heidegger rejects the usual alignment of Plato with Kant to align Kant

with Aristotle. ~' Thus though he would disagree with Natorp about Plato, he

does, as we have just seen, acknowledge that the subjectivism of modern

idealism is prefi gured in Plato. Plato starts us on the path to idealism.

Though Heidegger thinks that he has found an alternative to the either/

or of idealism and realism, he is happy to consign Plato to this very alterna-

tive. Heidegger would escape the dilemma of the transcendental vs. the

transcendent, but he allows Plato to be confounded by this same dilemma.

This dilemma, I suggest but shall not argue here, is no more appropriate to

Plato than to Heidegger. In sum, Heidegger pushes Plato in the opposing

directions of Aristotle and Natorp. Plato is either Aristotle's Plato with the

single idea of the Good in the place beyond the heavens or the Neo-Kantian

idealist of transcendental subjectivity. These two differing views, according

to Heidegger, mirror one another--just as Nietzsche mirrors Plato. They

represen t the dile mma o f objectivism/subjectivism which modern philosophy

cannot escape and which Heidegger proposes to resolve by eradicating it at

its root in the metaphysics of Plato.

Let us begin our closer consideration of Heidegger's interpretation of Plato

with the essay P la to s Do c t r in e o f T r u th , the only essay devoted exclusively to

Plato. Then we can turn back to the earlier and similar Plato interpretation

to find its sources in Heidegger's own explicitly metaphysical project. We can

illuminate thereby both the intentional ignorance of the later essay and the

problems Heidegger grappled with in his early attempt to establish a scien-

tific metaphysics.

The primary thesis of Pla to s Doctr ine o f Tru th is that Plato transforms

the notion of truth from unconc ealment to the correctness (orthotes) of

sight and, accordingly, of expression (Aussage). This transformation is

exemplified in the allegory of the cave in the Republ ic . Such a transforma-

tion changes the place of truth from a characteristic of beings or things

themselves to a feat ure of hu ma n comport men t toward things: The es-

~ Sein und Zeit (Tiibingen: Niemeyer, 1967), 2o8; in English by Macquarrie and Robinson,

Being and Tim e (New York: Harper & Row, 1962 , ~51.


10/29

HE1DEGGER S PLATO 9

sence of truth gives up the characteristic of unconc ealmen t . . . In orthotes,

the correctness of the look, lies everything . . . Tr ut h becomes

orthotes,

the

correctness of perception and expression. In this transformation of the

essence of truth a change of the place of truth occurs at the same time.

As unconcealment, truth is still a characteristic [Grundzug] of the being

itself. As correctness of the 'look,' however, truth becomes a characteristic

[Auszeichnung] of the human comportment toward being (Seienden) (PL

136-37).

This transformation of the understanding of truth is the cornerstone of

the metaphysical tradition. With this view of truth, Plato, according to

Heidegger, starts down the path that leads to the dilemma of modern

philosophy and the subjectivism and humanism of contemporary thought.

It was more than accident or convenience that led Heidegger to publish the

second edition of this essay in 1947 with the L e t t e r o n H u m a n i s m . This

letter develops the charge of huma nism that Heide gger makes in the

Plato essay: Th e b egin ning of metaphysics in the though t of Plato is at the

same time the be ginn ing of 'hu manism' (PL 142 ). Heidegge r's objection

to humanism is, of course, its subjectivism. This he tries closely to another

theme prominent in his later thought--technology. Metaphysical thought is

technical tho ugh t wherein knowledge is subordin ated to pro duc tio n-- if

not human production, then divine.

Heidegger knows full well that no simple identification of Plato with

modern metaphysics can be made. He insists in this essay, for example, that

the contemporary notion of value ( W e r t ) is not at all appropriate to the

Platonic notion of the good ( to agathon) . Nonetheless for Heidegger there is a

kind of continuity of the tradition. Nietzsche is called in the Plato essay the

most unbridled Platonist (z i igel loseste Platoniker) (PL 133). The transforma-

tion of truth in Plato is the great event that sets the way for modern subjec-

tivism as evidenced, for example, in Nietzsche.

Though the late concession (1964) mentioned above acknowledges that

the thesis about Plato's trans formati on of truth is mistaken, Heide gger does

not in that lecture or anywhere else recant his description of the traditional

metaphysical notion of truth or his attribution of that notion to Plato. Ac-

cordingly this late concession affects not so much his Plato interpretation as

his interpretation of the Pre-Socratics, and his attempt to find there the

doctrine of tru th as unconcealment . In the Seminar in Z~hringen (1973),

for example, Heidegger takes up his older reading of Parmenides to revise

it, and in the Seminar at Th or (1969) he sticks essentially to his earlie r

critique of Plato. Here, rather than insist on Plato's transformation of the

notion of trut h, Heid egg er suggests that Plato makes firm or sets fast

(festsetzen) in a decisive way the interpretation of the Being of beings as


11/29

8 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 23: JANUARY 985

p r e s e n t i n g p r e s e n c e ( a n w e s e n d e A n w e s e n h e i t ) w h i c h i s a l r e a d y t o b e f o u n d i n

t h e P r e - S o c r a t i c s . ~

I n th e P l a to es s ay H e i d e g g e r ' s p r i m a r y a r g u m e n t f o r c o r r ec t n e s s a s t h e

P l a t o n ic n o t i o n o f t r u t h c o n c e r n s t h e P l a to n i c

i de a .

H e u r g e s t h a t t h e es s e n c e

o f P l a t o ' s

i d e a

is a p p e a r a n c e

( A u s s e h e n

a n d

S c h e i n )

a n d v is ib il it y. T h r o u g h t h e

i d e a t h e e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l p r i m a c y o f th e m e t a p h o r o f s ig h t is s u p p o s e d l y

e s t a b l i s h e d f o r t h e m e t a p h y s i c a l t r a d it i o n . F u r t h e r , t h e i d e as a r e f ix e d a n d

i m m o v a b l e . A l t h o u g h i n t h i s e ss ay H e i d e g g e r d o e s n o t t a k e h is in t e r p r e ta -

t i o n b e y o n d t h e c a v e s t o r y t o c o n s i d e r t h e d i s c u ss i o n o f t h e d ia le c ti c t h a t

f o l l o w s it i n t h e d i a l o g u e , h e e l s e w h e r e s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e P l a t o n i c d ia l ec t ic is

b a s ic a ll y c a t e g o r i z a t i o n

( k a t e g ore i n ) . ~3

A c c o r d i n g l y , f r o m t h e t i m e o f Pl a to a n d

A r i s t o t le t h e f u n d a m e n t a l t a s k o f p h i l o s o p h y h a s a lw a y s b e e n t o e s ta b l i s h a

t a b l e o f c a t e g o r i e s , a l is t o f i d e a s . S i n c e t h e h i g h e s t r e a li t y is i d e a , t h e n

a c c o r d i n g t o H e i d e g g e r ' s v i ew P la t o ' s o n t o l o g y r e n d e r s B e i n g ( S e i n ) a s e s -

s e n c e o r b e i n g - w h a t ( W a s - S e i n ) . H e c o m m e n t s t h a t s u b s e q u e n t t o P la to th e

t r u e

esse

is

e s s e n t i a

a n d n o t

e x i s t e n t i a

( P L 1 31 ). T h u s e s s e n t i a l i s m is e s t a b -

l i s h e d - - - o f w h i c h n o m i n a l i s m is o n l y t h e i n v e r s e . B y i n t r o d u c i n g t h e c o n c e p t

o f e x i s t e n c e

( E x i s t e n z )

a n d its a c c o m p a n y i n g e x i s te n t ia l s in

B e i n g a n d T i m e ,

i n s t e a d o f t h e t r a d i t i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s , H e i d e g g e r s o u g h t a w a y o u t o f t h e

t r a d i t i o n a l i m p a s s e o f e s s e n t i a l i sm o r n o m i n a l i s m , o b j e c t i v i sm o r s u b je c ti v -

i s m , P l a t o o r N i e t z s c h e .

T h e o b v i o u s d i f f i c u l ty f o r H e i d e g g e r ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t he c a v e a l le g o ry

is t h e r o l e o f t h e s u n w h i c h r e p r e s e n t s t h e G o o d . H e r e H e i d e g g e r is f o r c e d

t o c o n s i d e r t h e o n t o l o g i c a l i m p o r t o f t h e a l le g o r y w h i c h h e f o r t h e m o s t p a r t

i g n o r e s , a s t h e c r it ic s h a v e p r o p e r l y p o i n t e d o u t . W h e n h e fi rs t c o n s i d e r s t h e

s u n , h e a c k n o w l e d g e s t h a t t h e s u n , a s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e G o o d , h a s a

d o u b l e f u n c t i o n . T h e s u n n o t o n l y p r o v i d e s l i g h t s u c h t h a t t h i n g s m a y b e

s e e n , b u t t h e s u n a l so g iv e s w a r m t h w h i c h m a i n t a i n s l i fe . M o r e s t r o n g l y , it

n o t o n l y le ts t h i n g s b e s e e n b u t it is t h e i r o r i g i n a n d c a u s e : ' T h e G o o d '

~ See Vier Seminare (Fran kfurt: Klostermann, 1967), 75. Decisive for the late Heidegger's

comm ents a bou t Plato and the Pre-Socratics is Heide gger's shift awa y from the question of

truth. In some of his last published comments

(Vier Seminare,

82) he describes his own pathway

of tho ugh t as having th ree phases. Th e leading questions for these phases are the following: (l)

the meaning of Being

(Sinn yon Sein),

(9) the truth of Being

(Wah rheit des Seins),

and (3) the

topology of Being

(topos des Se ins).

Th e Plato essay was written as Heide gger began the second

phase. Accordi~g to Heidegger in Vier Seminare (134) aletheia (unconcealment) has nothing to do

with

Wahrheit

(truth).

See POggeler 's com men ts on Heidegg er 's move away from

Wahrheit

as his leading question

in 'Geschichtlichkeit' im Sp~itwerk Heidegg ers, He idegg er und die herm eneutische Philosophie

(Freiburg: Alber, 1983) 16o-61 ; an d also his Ze it und Sein bei Heidegg er,

Zeit u nd Zeitlichkeit

bei Husserl u nd Heid egga r, Phiinomenologi~ cheForschungen,

14 (Freiburg: Alber, 1983), 186.

~3 Nietzsche

l: 529ff. See Rosen's apt criticism of this view, Heidegger's Interpretation of

Plato, 64 -65 .


12/29

HEIDEGGER S PLATO 81

m a i n t a in s t h e a p p e a r i n g o f t h e a p p e a r a n c e , w i th in w h i ch t h e p r e s e n t i n g

das

Anwesende) ,

t a k e s i ts s t a n d i n t h a t w h i c h i t i s" ( P L 1 3 5 ). ~4

O n l y a f t e r H e i d e g g e r p r e s e n t s a n d a r g u e s h i s m a j o r t h e s i s - - t h a t f o r P la t o

e v e r y t h i n g r e s t s o n t h e c o r r e c t n e s s o f t h e l o o k ~ 5 -- d o es h e r e t u r n t o th is

o t h e r a s p e c t a n d a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t P la t o d o e s n o n e t h e l e s s r e t a i n s o m e t h i n g

o f a n o n t o l o g i c a l n o t i o n o f t r u t h , i .e ., t h a t t r u t h is p l a c e d i n t h e t h i n g i t s e lf

a n d n o t i n t h e l o o k : " I n a c e r t a i n w a y n o n e t h e l e s s t h e ' t r u t h ' m u s t s ti l l h o l d

f a st as a c h a r a c t e r o f t h e b e i n g

des Seienden) ,

b e c a u s e t h e b e i n g as t h e

p r e s e n t i n g das Anwesende) i n t h e a p p e a r i n g h a s B e i n g da s Se in) a n d t h i s

b r i n g s w i t h i t u n c o n c e a l m e n t " ( P L 1 3 7) . ~6 T h e " m u s t " is i n d i c a t i v e o f t h e

w a y , f o r H e i d e g g e r , P l a t o is f o r c e d a g a i n s t h i s o w n v i ew to th i s a c k n o w l e d g e -

m e n t - - f o r c e d b y th e

Sache selbst,

a s i t w e r e . I n s o f a r a s t h i s r u n s c o n t r a r y t o

P l a t o ' s p r i m a r y v i e w , t h e r e r e s u l t s a n e q u i v o c a t i o n Zweideutigkeit) o n t h e

n o t i o n o f t r u t h . I n t y pi c al ly H e i d e g g e r i a n f a s h i o n t h e w a y th i n g s a r e ( h e r e ,

t r u t h a s u n c o n c e a l m e n t ) s h ow s t h r o u g h t h e c o v e r in g o v e r o f it b y m e t a p h y s -

ic s ( h e r e , P l a t o 's c o r r e c t n e s s o f t h e l o o k ). M y q u a r r e l w i t h t h is a s p e c t o f

H e i d e g g e r ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is n o t w i th t h e s u g g e s t io n t h a t t h e s e tw o t e n d e n -

c ie s e x is t i n P l at o . T h e y s u r e l y d o . M y c o m p l a i n t is t h a t H e i d e g g e r d o e s n o t

d e a l w i th t h e m m o r e s y m p a t h e t i c a l l y . I n f a ct , t h e se t w o a sp e c ts o f t r u t h a r e

j u s t t h e t w o t h a t H e i d e g g e r i n

B e i n g a n d T i m e

r e c o g n i z e s as n e c e s s a r y f o r a n y

a c c o u n t o f t r u t h . T h e r e h e a c ce p ts b o t h a s p a r t o f t h e p h e n o m e n o n o f t r u t h

a n d m a k e s i t h is t as k t o s h o w h o w t o g e t h e r t h e s e s e e m i n g l y e q u iv o c a l n o -

t io n s o f t r u t h t o g e t h e r c o n s t i t u t e t h e p h e n o m e n o n o f t r u t h . P l a to , l ik e H e i -

d e g g e r , w a n ts t o p r o v i d e a t r e a t m e n t o f t r u t h a d e q u a t e t o b o t h t h e s e d i m e n -

s i o n s - d i m e n s i o n s t h a t a r e n o t s im p l y i n c o m p a t i b l e o r e q u i vo c a l . P la t o is

n o t s i n g l e m i n d e d l y f i x e d o n t r u t h a s c o r r e c t n e s s .

I n h i s a r g u m e n t f o r t h e th e s i s t h a t " e v e r y t h i n g re s ts o n t h e lo o k " H e i d e g -

g e r c it es t h e s t a t e m e n t f r o m t h e a l l e g o r y o f t h e c av e t h a t t h e i d ea o f t h e

G o o d is it s e lf t h e kur ia Herr in , m i s t r e ss ) o f t r u t h ( 5 1 7 C 4 ). F r o m t h is h e g o e s

o n t o s u g g e s t t h a t t h e

idea

h a s t h e m a s t e r y o f t r u t h . I n H e i d e g g e r ' s a n a ly s is

idea

b e c o m e s

b l epe i n

w h i c h , i n t u r n , b e c o m e s t h e " l o o k "

Blick).

T h e " l o o k "

h a s m a s t e r y . B u t t h is t r e a t m e n t o f t h e t e x t is n o t e n t i r e l y s a t is f y in g , f o r i t is

n o t t h e

idea

s i m p l y t h a t h a s m a s t e r y ; i t is r a t h e r t h e

idea

o f th e G o o d .

H e i d e g g e r s u g g e s ts t h a t P l a to , b y m a k i n g t h e

i d e a

o f t h e G o o d " m i s t re s s ,"

p la ce s t r u t h u n d e r t h e y o k e o f idea . I t w o u l d b e b e t t e r t o n o t e t h a t t h e y o k e

,4 ,, 'Da s G ute' gew ~ihrt das Erscheinen des A ussehens, wo rin das An wesend e in dem , was

es ist, seinen Bestand hat."

9 PL 136: "An der

orthotes,

de r Richtigkeit des Blickens, liegt alles."

26 "In gew isser W eise m uss Platon jed oc h die 'Wah rheit' noch als Charakter des Seienden

festhalten, w eil das Seiende als das Anw esende im Erscheinen das Se in hat u nd dieses die

Unv erborgenheit mit sich bringt."


13/29

8 2 J O U R N A L O F T H E H I S T O R Y O F P H I L O S O P H Y 2 3 : I J A N U A R Y ~985

under which truth serves is not idea as such but the i d e a of the Good. In

another Platonic metaphor, the truth is the offspring of the Good.

Heidegger's failure or refusal to adequately place this allegory in the

larger context of the dialogue frustrates any reader of the Republic. Though

Heidegger does deal briefly (PL 133-35) with the discussion of the Good

and even refers to 5o9 B, he ignores the famed statement by Socrates at

5o9 B (when the sun allegory is intro duced in the dialogue) that the Good is

not being (ousia) but beyond being (epekeina tes ousias). Certain ly this makes

it difficult to treat the Good simply as an idea. The ideas are presented by

Plato as true being

(ousia),

but the Good is beyond being. It is the very cause

(aitia)

of being. As the source of light the sun is more difficult to see than

any thing. Rather it lets things be seen for what they are, while it itself

remains, for the most part, unseen. Though Plato does call the Good an

idea, unlike the othe r ideas it is never in the

Republic

called

eidos

as the others

are. '~7 Heidegger transla ted

eidos

as

Aussehen

or appearance. In accord with

this, the Good should not be understood as an appearance. Rather the Good

presents no appearance. It is beyond the forms. It is their very ground.

Heidegger, of course, recognizes its pre-eminence but sees it only as the

pre-eminent idea, the idea

par excellence.

He uses the Platonic phrase-- the

idea o f all ideas (PL 133 ). He does not adequate ly attend to the significant

distinctiveness o f the Good. ~s

This slighting of the difference of the Good from the other ideas is

surprising in the context of the classical tradition wherein Neo-Platonism

makes this distinction fundamental. But it is even more surprising in the

context of the development of Heidegger's own thought. In the Marburg

period, the period of the project of Be ing and T ime , though Heidegger pays

little attention to Plato, this phrase from the

Rep ublic, epekeina tes ousias,

is

one of the most prominent and oft-repeated classical citations by Heidegger.

Not only is the phrase freque nt and used at important junctu res in the

47 G a d a m e r p o i n t s t h i s o u t i n D i e l d e e d e s G u t e n z w i s c h e n P l a t o u n d A r is t ot e le s 2 0 - 2 I .

~s O n e c o u l d p e r h a p s d e f e n d t h e n a r r o w n e s s o f H e i d e g g e r ' s i n t e r p r e t a t io n i n t h e fo l lo w i n g

w a y . I t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o a d e q u a t e l y p r o v i d e t h e c o n t e x t f o r t h i s a l le g o r y i n th e s p a c e o f a le c t u r e

o r a s h o r t e s sa y . H e i d e g g e r is i n t e r e s t ed h e r e i n t h e p r o b l e m o f t r u th , n o t t h e p r o b l e m o f

B e i n g . T h u s t h e o b j e c t i o n t h a t t h e o n t o l o g i c a l s i g n if i c a n c e o f t h e s u n i s n o t a d e q u a t e l y d e a l t

w i t h i s i rr e l e v a n t , e s p e c i a ll y s i n ce t h i s f a m o u s p h r a s e s t a n d s o u t s i d e t h e t e x t o f t h e c a v e a ll e g o ry .

S u c h a d e f e n s e , h o w e v e r , i g n o r e s t h a t p r e c i s e ly w h a t H e i d e g g e r w a n t e d t o es c a p e w a s s u c h a

d i s t i n c t i o n o f t r u t h a n d B e i n g . H i s c h a r g e a g a i n s t P l a t o is t h a t P l a t o w as th e d e c i s iv e h is t o ri c a l

t h i n k e r t o d r i v e t h e w e d g e b e t w e e n t r u t h a n d B e i n g . T h u s m y c ri ti ci sm o f H e i d e g g e r ' s i n t e rp r e -

t a t i o n i s n o t t h a t b e [ h i l e d t o p r o v i d e t h e f u l l c o n t e x t b u t t h a t h e f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e t h e r e l e v a n t

c o n t e x t - - t h a t w h i c h u n d e r m i n e s h i s t h e si s . I n t h e P l a t o e s s ay ( P L 1 4 l ) H e i d e g g e r d o e s b r ie f ly

c o n s i d e r t h e G o o d a s h i g h e s t c a u s e a n d e x p l a i n s i t a w a y a s t h e o l o g i c a l A s w e s h a l l s e e b e lo w ,

t h i s f it s w i t h H e i d e g g e r ' s p r o d u c t i v i ty th e s i s c o n c e r n i n g G r e e k o n t o lo g y w h i c h H e i d e g g e r

w o r k e d

o u t

i n M a r b u r g .


14/29

H E I D E G G E R ' S P L A T O 8

argument of the lectures, this phrase provides the name tbr the sort of

ontolog y--metont ology-- which Heidegger proposed for the completion of

the project begun in the fundamental ontology of

Being and Time.

Given the

importance of this phrase to the classical tradition and to Heidegger himself,

its absence in this essay is quite obtrusive. 29

3

Two things are decisive for the interpretation of Plato presented in

Plato s

Doctrine of Truth.

First, the difference between the Good and the ideas is

slighted, i.e., the

epekeina

is ignored. Secondly, notions of truth as correctness

and as unconcealment are taken to be simply equivocal. The former is attrib-

uted to Plato, the latter to a more originary and more appropriate notion

that shows through in spite of Plato. Looking at Heidegger's Plato interpre-

tation by way of Heidegger's own development reveals both a critique of

Plato that remains essentially the same and an earlier view that neither

ignores the epekeina nor assumes the incompatibility of correctness and un-

concealment. How can this be? Let us look first at the earlier Plato critique

and then at the more significant philosophical issue concerning the

epekeina

and truth.

We should recall first of all that the early Heidegger was not as inimical

to metaphysics as he became after his turn . '3~ Th ou gh

Being and Time

and

'~9 F o r H e i d e g g e r ' s e x p l i c it m e n t i o n o f t h e epekeina s e e G p 4 O l - O 5 , 4 2 5, 4 3 6 ( B P 2 8 3 - 8 6 ,

2 9 9 , 3 o 7 ) ; Von Wesen des Grundes in Wegmarken, 5 6 - 5 8 , i n E n g l i s h 9 2 - 9 9 . S e e a l so t h e l a s t

M a r b u r g l e ct u re s f r o m t h e s u m m e r o f 1 92 8: Metaphys ische An fangsgrunde der Log ik im Ausgang

von Leibniz , Gesamtausgabe ( F r a n k f u r t : K l o s t e r m a n n , 1 9 7 8 ) 2 6 : 1 4 3 , 2 3 7 , 2 4 6 , ~ 8 4 . H e r e a f t e r

t h e s e l e c t u r e s w i ll b e r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e t e x t a s M P ( M e t a p h y s i c a l P r i n c i p le s ) .

O n e c a n i d e n t i f y , a s G i l s o n d o e s i n Be ing a nd Some Ph i losophers ( T o r o n t o : P o n t i f i c a l I n s t i t u t e ,

~ 9 49 ), t w o p r i m a r y d e v e l o p m e n t s i n t h e W e s t e r n m e t a p h y s i c a l t r a d i t io n w i t h r es p e c t to t h e

d o c t r in e o f B e i n g a n d t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f G o d . T h e o n e t h r e a d o f d e v e l o p m e n t i d en t if ie s

G o d w i t h B e i n g a n d f i n d s i ts r o o t i n A r i s t o t le . B i b l ic a l ly Y a h w e h ' s i d e n t i f ic a t i o n o f h i m s e l f to

M o s e s i n t h e b u r n i n g b u s h a s I a m w h o a m is f o r th i s s c h o o l f u n d a m e n t a l . T h e o t h e r l in e o f

d e v e l o p m e n t b e g i n s w i th t h e

epekeina

o f P l a t o . I t f i n d s i ts m o s t s i g n i f i c a n t d e v e l o p m e n t i n t h e

N e o - P l a t o n i s m o f P l o ti n u s . T h i s is t a k e n u p b y A u g u s t i n e , t h e P s e u d o - D io n y s i u s, a n d M e i s t e r

E c k h a r t . F o r E c k h a r t , t o b e d o e s n o t b e l o n g t o G o d . H e i d e g g e r i s n o t c o n c e r n e d w i t h a d o c t r i n e

o f G o d . T h e f e w e a r ly r e m a r k s b y H e i d e g g e r a b o u t G o d c h a r a c t e ri z e H i m a s a b e i n g a m o n g

b e i n g s. B u t t h e s i g n i fi c a n ce o f A u g u s t i n e a n d E c k h a r t f o r t h e e a rl y H e i d e g g e r is w e l l- d o cu -

m e n t e d . D a s e i n i s o f t e n d e s c r i b e d p r o v o c a t i v e l y i n p h r a s e s t r a d i t io n a l l y a s s i g n e d t o G o d . M o s t

d r a m a t ic a l ly , i n t h e I n t r o d u c t i o n t o Se in und Ze i t D a s e i n i s c a l l e d t h e transcendens schlechthin

( t h e s i m p l y t r a n s c e n d e n t ) , a n d , f u r t h e r , D a s e i n ' s e s s e n c e is s a i d t o b e i ts e x i s t e n c e . S o to o ,

D a s e i n 's u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f B e i n g r es t s o n a p r o j e c t io n b e y o n d B e i n g ( t h e epekeina). D a s e i n , i n

t h e t r a n s c e n d e n c e o f i ts f r e e d o m , i s i d e n t if i e d w i t h t h e epekeina.

30 H e i d e g g e r ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o m e t a p h y s i c s a f t e r h e t u r n s a w a y f r o m h i s o w n e x p l i c it ly

m e t a p h y s i c a l p r o j e c t is n o t a m a t t e r o f s i m p l e o p p o s i t i o n a n d r e j e c t i o n . M e t a p h y s i c s , t o r H e i -

d e g g e r a f t e r t h e t u r n , is b o t h n i h i li s m a n d t h e f a t e o f W e s t e r n t h o u g h t . A s s u c h, m e t a p h y s i c s is

n o t a m a t t e r f o r a c c e p t a n c e o r r e je c ti o n . T h e c o m p l e x i t y o f h is r e l a ti o n s h i p t o m e t a p h y s ic s a f t e r

t h e ' t u r n ' c a n n o t b e d e v e l o p e d h e r e . I n t h e I n t r o d u c t i o n t o What is Metaphysics? ( 1 9 7 9 )


15/29

8 4 J O U R N L O F T H E H I ST O R Y O F PH I L O SO P H Y 2 3 : 1 J N U R Y 1 9 8 5

Basic Problems in Phenomenology e s c h e w t h e t i t le o f m e t a p h y s i c s , i n th e l a s t

l e c t u r e s a t M a r b u r g ,

The M etaphysical Principles of Logic B egin ning with Leibniz

Die Metaphysische Anfangsgr~nde der Logik im Ausgang yon Leibniz)

H e i d e g g e r

e x p li c it l y a n d r e p e a t e d l y r e f e r s t o h is o w n p h i l o s o p h i c a l p r o j e c t a s m e t a p h y s -

ic s , c o m p o s e d o f f u n d a m e n t a l o n t o l o g y a n d s o m e t h i n g h e t h e re ca lls

m e t o n t o l o g y , a ' T h e p r o b l e m o f t h e t e r m m e t a p h y s i c s i n t h e e a r ly H e i d e g -

g e r is r o u g h l y c o m p a r a b l e t o t h e p r o b l e m o f K a n t ' s u s e o f t h e te r m . B o t h

a r e s h a r p l y c r i t ic a l o f t h e t r a d i t i o n o f m e t a p h y s i c s a n d b o t h p r o p o s e t o

a c c o m p l i s h a n a p p r o p r i a t e m e t a p h y s i c s t h e m s e l v e s . B o t h c r it ic iz e t h e t r ad i -

t i o n a l m e t a p h y s i c s f o r b e i n g i n s u f f i c i e n t ly s c ie n ti f ic . W i t h t h e t u r n , h o w e v e r ,

H e i d e g g e r a b a n d o n s t h e i n c o m p l e t e p ro j e c t o f

Being and T ime ,

a b a n d o n s

m e t a p h y s i c s , a n d a b a n d o n s s c i en c e.

T h e h i s to r i ca l p a r t o f th is e a r l y p r o j e c t ( P a r t T w o o f Being and Time) w a s

t o b e a d e s t r u c t i o n Destruktion) o f t h e h i s t o ry o f o n t o l o g y o r m e t a p h y s i c s .

T h e r h e t o r i c o f d e s t r u c t i o n is w e a k e n e d c o n s i d e r a b l y in th e

Metaphysical

Principles w h e n H e i d e g g e r c o m m e n t s t h a t t h e a n c i e n t s n e e d n o t b e o v e r c o m e

a n d w o n d e r s i f c r i t i q u e i s a t a ll a p p r o p r i a t e . W h a t m u s t b e f o u g h t , h e s ay s ,

a r e t h e b a d a d m i n i s t r a t o r s Sachwalter) o f t h e t r a d i t i o n . 3 N e e d l e s s t o s ay ,

i n t h e P l a t o e s s a y as w e l l a s i n t h e s e l e c t u r e s H e i d e g g e r a t t a c k s n o t th e

c o n t e m p o r a r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f P la t o b u t P l a t o h im s e l f . N o r is h e a lw a y s s o

m o d e s t w i t h r e s p e c t t o h is o w n p l a c e i n th e t r a d i t i o n . H e d o e s in s is t t h a t t h e

e n t i r e m e t a p h y s i c a l t r a d i t i o n p o i n t s t o h is o w n m e t a p h y s i c s o f D a s e i n . 3:*

T h e p r i n c i p le c h a p t e r s o f H e i d e g g e r ' s d e s t r u c t iv e t r e a t m e n t o f t h e t ra d i-

t i o n i n

B e i n g a n d T i m e

w e r e t o b e d e v o t e d t o A r i s t o tl e , D e s c a r te s , a n d K a n t - -

t h e h i s t o r i c a l f i g u r e s t o w h o m H e i d e g g e r f e lt h i m s e l f c l os e st . T h i s i s l es s t h e

c a s e w i t h D e s c a r t e s b u t t h e r e H e i d e g g e r , a s i n t h e Basic Problems, w a s t o

e x a m i n e D e s c a r t e s ' d e p e n d e n c e o n m e d i e v a l s c ho la s ti c i sm . A m o n g t h e a n -

c i en t s i t is A r i s t o t le w h o m H e i d e g g e r f a v o r s. W h e n i n t h e l e c t u re s o n t r u t h

i n t h e w i n t e r s e m e s t e r o f 1 9 2 5 /2 6 ( t h e t i m e w h e n h e w a s w r i t i n g Being and

Time)

H e i d e g g e r a t t e m p t s t o c o u n t e r t h e d o m i n a n t N e o - K a n t i a n n o t i o n o f

t r u t h a s j u d g m e n t , h e d o e s s o b y f ir st c o u n t e r i n g t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y n o t i o n

Heidegger discusses the relation of thought Denken) to metaphysics primarily in terms of

overcoming Jberwindung). In Th e Question of Being Zu r Seinsfrage, z955) overcoming

takes place within the getting over

Verwindung)

of metaphysics.

Wegmarken,

245 ) In the

lecture Tim e and Being (1962) He idegg er by way of conclusicln says: Th erefo re, ou r task is

to cease all overcoming, and leave metaphysics to itself

Zu r Sache des Denkens,

25;

On Timeand

Being, 24).

3, See especially the ap pen dix ( Kennzeichnung der ld ee und Funktion einer Fundamenta-

lontologie ) to Section lo ( Das Problem yon Sein und Zeit ') .

~ MP 197 ; O ne ca n find similar com m ents in the later Heidegger, for example, in the

Letter on Hum anism Wegmarken,

t 76) and in

Vier Seminare,

75.

~:~ G p lO6: Es ist ab er auc h deutlich g eworden , dass die Ontologie des Daseins das latente

Ziel und die s t~ indige m ehr ode r m inder deut liche Forderu ng der gesamten Entwicklung der

abendl~indischen Philosophie darstellt (BP 75).


16/29

HEID EGGER 'S PLATO 8 5

wi th tha t o f Ar i s to t l e and Ar i s tot l e ' s equa t ion o f Being an d t ru th in the

M e t a p h y s i c s

(Book Theta , lO) . 34 Havi ng un derm ined the con temp orar y no-

t ion wi th the more o r ig i nary Ar i s to te l i an no t ion , he then goes on to c r it ic i ze

Aris tot le . I t seems fai r to say that in his Mar bur g peri od H eid egg er uses

Aris tot le not so muc h to cr it ic ize Plato as to cr i tic ize mod er n phi losop hy. H e

f inds Ar i s to t l e appropr ia te fo r th is t ask in par t because o f h is accep tance o f

Ar i s to t l e 's c r i t ique o f P la to and in par t because o f the Ne o-Ka nt ia n a l ign-

ment wi th Plato . This i s not to say that he at tempted to s imply fol low

Aris tot le . ~5 Rat her Aris tot le , too, was inad equ ate , especial ly with re spect to

the ana lys i s o f t ime. The source tha t p rov ided the l everage aga ins t even

Aris tot le was, for the ear ly Hei deg ger , Chris t iani ty , especial ly Paul ' s eschato-

logical and kai rological not ion of t ime wi th i ts pr ior i ty of the fu ture. 36

Whi le the you ng Heide gger c r it ic i zes the Greek ph i losoph ica l t rad i t ion f rom

24 Logik: Die Frage nach der Wahrheit, Gesamtausgabe,

vol. 21 (Frankfurt: Klostermann, 1976).

Though Heidegger's critique of truth as judgment is oriented primarily around Lotze and

secondarily toward Rickert, this critique also applies to Natorp. These lectures ignore Plato but

wrestle with the fairly standard interpretation of Aristotle based primarily on

De Interpretatione

that sees truth as judgment for Aristotle as well. Heidegger would counter this with his reading

of Metaphysics, Theta lo, which is also invoked in the Plato essay (PL a38). For Heidegger these

two sources in Aristotle represent the very equivocation Zweideutigkeit) on truth that he discerns

in Plato.

3~ Nor do I mean to say that Heidegger did not see important agreements between Arist-

otle and Plato. This essay does not explore Heidegger's agreement with Aristotle's critique of

Plato since in the primary essay under consideration Heidegger insists on the fundamental

agreement between Plato and Aristotle on the two major theses: (l) the equivocation on the

notion of tru th, and (2) the theological interpretation of transcendence.

Heidegger came to Marburg in 1923 on the strength of an unpublished essay which inter-

preted Aristotle phenomenologically. The essay was sent to Natorp, who held the chair at

Marburg, via the mediation of Husserl, for whom Heidegger was the Assistant in Freiburg. It

was represented as the introduction to a large work on Aristotle. Of this essay and Heidegger's

frequent teaching of Aristotle at Marburg Gadamer writes: At that time I was strongly influ-

enced by Heidegger's interpretat ion of Aristotle, the real intention of which was still not com-

pletely evident, namely, its critique of ontology, and which in essence repeated Aristotle's

critique of Plato in the form of an existential, situation-oriented philosophical critique of the

idealist tradition Dialogue and Dialectic , 198). In the Prolegomena lectures of 1925 Gesamtausgabe

2o:23) Heidegger places his own work in the context of the Aristotelian school of the anti-Hege-

lian Trendelenburg, whose students included both Brentano and Dilthey. See also in this regard

Gadamer's autobiography Philosophische Lehrjahre, 24, 212ft., and his essay Martin Heidegger

und die Marburger Theologie, 82-92; as well as Thomas Sheehan's, Heidegger's Early Years:

Fragments for a Philosophical Biography, Lis tening 12 (Fall 1977), 3-2o.

~6 'Kairological' is from St. Paul's term

kairos

(= [sacred] time), e.g., Rom 13:11. For the

significance of Christianity for the early Heidegger see the following: Otto P6ggeler,

Der Denk-

weg Mar t in Heideggers (Pful lingen: Neske, L963), especially 36-45; Thomas Sheehan, Heideg-

ger's 'In troduction to the Phenomenology of Religion,'

The Personalist,

6o (1979): 312-24; Karl

Lehmann, Christliche Geschichtserfahrung und ontologische Frage beim jungen Heidegger,

Philosophisches Jahrbuc h,

74 (1966): 126-53; Hans Georg Gadamer, Martin Heidegger und die

Marburger Theologie and Heidegger and the History of Philosophy,

Monist,

64 (198 l): ~t23-

44; and Die religi6se Dimension in Heidegger, Archives de Philosophie, 34 (1981), 271-86

These three are reprinted in Gadamer's

Heideggers Wege

(Tiibingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1983).


17/29

8 6 J O U R N A L O F T H E H I S T O R Y O F P H I L O S O P H Y 9 3 : I J A N U A RY 1 9 8 5

t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f th e J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n t r ad i t i o n a s si s t ed by L u t h e r a n d

K i e r k e g a a r d a m o n g o t h e r s , h e c o m e s t o s e e, w h i l e s t il l a t M a r b u r g , t h a t t h e

c o n t i n u i t y is m o r e s i g n i f i ca n t t h a n t h e d i s c o n ti n u i ty . T h u s h e c a n s ay i n B a s i c

P r o b l e m s ( 1 9 ~7 ) t h a t P l a t o ' s d o c t r i n e o f i d e a s w a s t a i l o r - m a d e f o r t h e J u d a e o -

C h r i s t i a n w o r l d v ie w . 37 H e l e a ve s K i e r k e g a a r d f o r N i e tz s c h e , f o r w h o m

C h r i s t i a n i t y i s P l a t o n i s m f o r t h e m a s s e s . T h e l a t e r H e i d e g g e r t u r n s n o t s o

m u c h t o C h r i s t i a n i t y a s t o t h e P r e - S o c r a t i c s f o r r e s o u r c e s a g a i n s t th e p h i lo -

s o p h i c a l t r a d i t io n . H e l a t e r a t t r i b u t e s h i s p r e f e r e n c e o f A r i s to t l e o v e r P l a t o

t o t h e f o r m e r ' s a r c h a i s m . 38

T h e c o n t i n u i ty t h a t H e i d e g g e r f i n ds b e tw e e n G r e e k p h i l o s o p h y a n d

C h r i s t i a n i t y is a l a r g e o n e t h a t i n c r i m i n a t e s A r i s t o t l e a s w e l l a s P l a t o a n d is

d e c i s i v e f o r h i s c r i t iq u e o f P l a to a n d t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f P l a to w i th t h e

e n t i r e m e t a p h y s i c a l t r a d i t io n . T h i s c o n t i n u i t y f o r H e i d e g g e r r es t s o n th e

G r e e k u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f B e i n g a s p r o d u c t i o n ( H e r s t e l l u n g ) . H e i d e g g e r

t r e a t s A r i s t o t le ' s f o u r c a u s e s a s e x e m p l a r y o f th e t he si s. T h e c o n s t i t u t io n o f

a n y b e i n g is u n d e r s t o o d a s a n a l o g o u s t o th e p r o d u c t i o n o f a n a r t e f a c t - -

i n v o l v i n g m a t e r i a l , d e s i g n , a g e n t , a g e n t ' s p u r p o s e . A c c o r d i n g l y , e s s e n c e

( W a s - s e i n ) , w h i c h t r a n s l a t e s o u s i a , m e a n s t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e p r o d u c e d i n

t h e s e n s e o f t h e d i s p o s a b l e p r e s e n t - a t - h a n d . ' '39 T w o c o n c e p t s a r e e s se n ti a l t o

th is v i e w o f B e i n g - - p r o d u c t i o n a n d b e i n g - p r e s e n t - a t - h a n d ( V o r h a n d e n s e i n ) . 4 ''

B y w a y o f p r o d u c t i o n , b e i n g - p r e s e n t - a t - h a n d , H e i d e g g e r a s s er ts , is t he p r e -

e m i n e n t n o t i o n o f B e i n g t h r o u g h o u t t h e W e s t e r n t r a d i t io n . G o d o r t h e

d e m i u r g e is t h e u l t i m a t e p r o d u c e r . T h u s a ll m e t a p h y s i c s is o n t o - th e o l o g i c a l.

T h i s u n d e r l i e s o u r o w n c o n t e m p o r a r y t e ch n o lo g ic a l f r a m e o f m i n d .

T h o u g h H e i d e g g e r h i m s e l f c h id e s t h o s e w h o w o u l d r e a d A r i s t o tl e a s a

d i s g u i s e d C h u r c h F a t h e r ( M P 1 9 o ), h is o w n p r o d u c t i o n t h es is is c o n s o n a n t

w i t h t h e C h r i s t i a n a p p r o p r i a t i o n o f G r e e k p h i l o s o p h y . T h i s is p a r t i c u la r l y

a p p a r e n t w i t h r e s p e c t to P l a to i n B a s i c P r o b l e m s , w h e n H e i d e g g e r m a k e s th e

e p e k e i n a o r , s y n o n y m o u s l y , t r a n s c e n d e n c e h is c e n t r a l t h e m e . T h e r e h e t a l ks

o f P l a t o b u m p i n g u p a g a i n s t t h e

e p e k e i n a ,

t h e p h e n o n o m e n o f t ra n sc e n -

:/7 Gp 168: Die antike O ntologie war in ihren Fundamenten und G rund begriff en trotz

an de rer U rspr ung e d er christlichen Wehauffassung und A uffassung des Seienden als ens cre-

atum gleichsam au f den Leib zugeschnitten (BP 118). In An Introduction to Metaphysics trans-

lated by R alph Mannheim (N ew Haven: Y ale University Press, 1959), IO6 lectures from 1935,

H eid eg ge r states: Nietzsche was right in saying that Christianity is Platonism fbr the people.

For the German, see Einfiihrung in die Metaphysik (Tfibingen: Niem eyer, 1953), 8o. He refers

here to Nietzsche's comment in the Preface to Jenseits yon Gut u nd B6se (Beyond Good and Evil).

:~ See, for example, Nietzsche ~: ~28 and 409; and Vom W esen und Begriff der Phusis,'

Wegm arken, 31 ~.

:~ Gp t53 : Der Gru ndbeg r i f f de r ousia betont dagegen mehr die Hergestelltheit des Her-

gestellten im Sinne des verftigb aren Vorh ande nen (BP 1n9).

4- We cannot consider the relevance of Heidegger's notion of being-ready-to-hand (Zuhan-

densein) for his own understanding of production.


18/29

HEI DEGGER S PLATO 87

dence. He acknowledges that with this problem: we un de rs ta nd .. , that

philosophy has not made any further progress with its cardinal question

than it had already in Plato . . . . [W]e are moving within one of Plato's

fun damen ta l problems (BP 282-8 3, Gp 4oo). He does not develop an inter-

pretation of 5o9 B but he recognizes that it could un der min e his pro duction

thesis. He dismisses this possibility in the following way: It appears as

though our thesis that ancient philosophy interprets [B]eing in the horizon

of production in the broadest sense would have no connection at all with

what Plato notes as [the] condition o f [the] possibility of the unde rst andin g

of [B]eing. Our interpre tation of ancient ontology and its guiding clue seems

to be arbitrary. What could the idea of the good have to do with production?

Without enter ing fur the r into this matter, we offer only the hint that the

idea

[ tou] agathou is nothing but the demiurgos, the producer pure and simple.

This lets us see how the idea [ tou] aga thou is connected with poie in , praxis ,

techne in the b roade st sense (BP ~86, Gp 405). 4L Her e Heidegge r invokes

the T i m a e u s to indicate the continu ity of Platonism with Christianity much as

the early Christian philosophers did. Similarly, in the Plato essay transcen-

dence is interpreted theologically.4~

Nowhere in the Marburg lectures published thus far does Heidegger

develop his critique of Plato, but in

Metaphys i ca l Pr inc ip le s

he does indicate

precisely how he was to criticize Plato two years later in

Plato s Doctr ine o f

T r u t h . Here he lists six aspects of the transcendence of the Good. These

include:

(1) Th e Good is ha rd to see.

(2) The Good is the cause or gro und of the just and beautiful and their

fellowship (koinonia) .

(3) Th e Good gives light so tha t things can be seen.

(4) Th e Good gro unds the inner possibility of tru th and reason.

(5) Th e Good is the principle (arche) of all.

(6) The Goo d is above beings and t heir Being.

The se six guide his own analysis of the tr anscendence of Dasein, yet Heideg-

ger suggests that the third should provide the basis for the interpretation of

the cave allegory: Here is where the cave allegory shoul d be fully inter-

pre ted . '43 This is exactly what he does when he sits down to write his essay

on Plato.

4~ See also MP 237. Gadamer distinguishes the demiurgic activityof the Timaeus from the

Judaeo-Christian concept of creation in

Dialog ue and Dialectic,

163, 181, 193.

4~pL 141. Later, in the Nietzsche lectures Heidegger seems to take this back

(Nietzsche 2:

225).

43 MP x44: Hier w~ire das H6hlengleichnisausfiJhrlich zu interpretieren.


19/29

88 JOU RNA L OF THE HISTORY OF PHIL OSOP HY 3: ~ JANUARY ~ 9 8 5

I n t h e s e l e c t u r e s h e t o u c h e s b r i e f ly o n t h e o n t o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m o f p a r ti ci -

p a t i o n

methexis)

a s s u g g e s t e d i n ( 5) a n d (6 ) a b o v e - - s o m e t h i n g h e a v o id s fo r

t h e m o s t p a r t i n th e l a t e r P la t o es sa y . T h e q u e s t i o n is u n a v o i d a b l e H e i d e g g e r

s a y s : I s t h e w o r l d a r e a l m o f i d e a s , a

huperouranios topos ,

t o w a r d w h i c h

r e a s o n , w h i c h h a s s u n k i n t o D a s e i n , l o o k s ? O r is t h e w o r l d t h e e n t ir e t y o f

i d e a s w h i c h a r e i n t h e s u b j e c t f r o m its b i r t h ? ( M P 2 3 4 ). A s w e n o t e d a b o v e ,

t h is w a y o f p u t t i n g t h e q u e s t i o n is p r e c i s e l y t h e w a y it w a s p u t b y N a t o r p i n

h is P l at o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . H e i d e g g e r d o e s n o t t a k e u p t h e la t te r q u e s ti o n , b u t

t h e c o n t e x t s u g g e s t s its i n a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s . C o n c e r n i n g t h e f o r m e r q u e s t io n

H e i d e g g e r c o m m e n t s t h a t A r i s to t le s a w t h a t s u c h a n a p p r o a c h l ea d s t o a

d o u b l i n g o f b e i n g s ( M P 2 3 5 ). T h i s c o m m e n t s u g g e s t s t h a t P la t o d i d n o t s e e

it.

I n e i t h e r c a s e t h e a n c i e n t v i e w c e n t e r s o n i n t u it i o n

A n s c

dostal - beyong being. heidegger´s plato

Documents