-

INTRODUCTION

1be ,atpese of this paper i8 to e~mine cer~ain works of

the later Ueidegger with G .peciai vicw to what he sClys in the.e

work. concerning the telation of Being to the elBenceof man.

\10 eon oondder thi., paper ., an effort to deter!l"line and clarify

the meaning of the following three stateme~tD which occur in the

important wort, ~ !l1troductl0.l!.. ~ r,~etaphysio81

1. The determination of the eaoenoe of ~an i8 never Qn answer but essentially a question. .

2. The Q8kin~'of this que.tion and the deal.lon 1n th19~~, question $re historical, and not merely in_a ~ene •• l aense; ~ this question i. the very'cogenoe of history.

;. The question of what ll".,an i. mu'st nlways be taken in it. eSlential bond with the question of how it stands with Being. The ,question of man io not an anthropolo~leal ques-tion but.a hiatorically meta-physioal quootion. \!he question oannot be 8dequstely asked in the domain of traditional rcetaphyllica whioh remll,ina easentio.ljy 'phyoics.!) 1

The works whioh we ghall eX'rnine in dt'ltall are On the --Euuence 2! Truth, ~ Introduction ~ llctaphY8ics. end the "Letter on

Humllnlem. If Our effort w111 be direoted solely to understanding

cule.rly negative judf?1cnt, on wh;,t he Gays. In perhaps un-Heideg-

gerten fashion, our ooncern will be to present Qnd attempt to

,give thought ~o, not the un-said, but the said. Tho two paints

which we trust will be oleAreat area 1. that the "Letter on

Humanism" gives a precision to the meaning of the seoond atate-

mont and thUA of the historioal ohQraoter of the question b.f~re us--

a preoision not found in the t\fO eerHcr work.; and, 2. that

there is a shift in lIood wlt,hin the lilter_ Heidep:r;cr .~ay from Golf-·

1

------ ---------------------------------.-------------

1.

BGGertive'violenoe to the idea of man a. "Ihepher' of Being,- and

even to gratitude for Being'. favor (in ~ heisst Den~en1. a work

whioh we ahail not examine here).

OltAPTER ONEa AN INTROOOCTIO~ TO rmTAPHYSICS AND 0:1 THE ....., . ---~ ESSI!.'UOE OF TNUTH - ................ _--........

The relation ot Bein~ to the eacence of man haa, ao

niohardson notes,2 been G problem oooupying Hoidegger'. atten-

tion e~et Dinoe Being ~ Time (~) •. Xt might porhapa be beat for UD

us to begin by ex.~ining oertain indioationa preoented in An -Introduotion ~ 2~etaphydo. (E,) , one of. the ea,rHe.t written

works of th~ later Heidogger. The Iarrest sinele section of

thh work di:culilli:e9 the themtt I Boing and Th1nk1nlt' and i8

thus oonol}rned w1 th tho reta tlon8hip bet\'1ecn Oeing and man' ;

e900n08. Unlike b~oomlng and appearance, whioh are situated,'

with Being, in the r~alm of •• ingo, thinking ·g.~o it.olf

off asa1nst 8s1ng in such a way that Being is place. before

••• it ~nd oO!1oeq~ently stand. opposed to it a. an object .• "

f1&idep;sz;er tells UI that he 18 Deeking to return to the orlg1no

of this, distinction, whioh,ha. proved to be of mammoth oi~l~

flo8.noo n~t only i~ t:eatern phUollophy but in ap of' t'estern

hhtory.

Th& oharQcter1.tl08 of thi~king, aa the lattor i.

U8uGlly undGrstood, are summarized ao f'ollowat

1. Rcpreoentalion 'of Our otm aocord'--oonuidered ... a uniquely froe act.

2. Beprolentetion'" analytical synthesis. ,. Ora" of the universe,l thro\.igh re-preoentation.5

2

Heideee:er's prinoipal effort in the pae;eo that follow

io to ;how that thinking, in it. relation to Oein~, cannot 8imply

be pbced alongside our other ·fa.oultia;." 8uoh aR willing, feeling,

etc., on the ground, that- all involve a relation to beings.

botween thi~kine and Being itsolf. The tormul~ 'Being and thinkin~'

designateD a differentiation that i9 demanded .s it were by

nein8 Itcdr..,,6

The substantiation of this theuis 18 initiated by a di9-

euaslon of the moaning of lOBos, of both ita original me.ning and

ito later derived moanineo, whioh are oonnected with tho ordinary

connotation of ftlor.10.~ t~ll. Nlo~e" 19 taken to b. tho philo-.

sophieal dootrine or thinking, the term itself is an abbreviat&on

of epis~; 10Blk.. the soienoe of the 10e28. - Loses is here

tQken t.o mean, not Ifthinkin,r, /I but Ifstatement.- iJnat io the

conneotion between statement and thinkinr.' .How did tho Dcienoe

of statement come to be regarded as the doctrine of thinking?

Thinking waB not oril"ine.llX otudied by the Sloifmo!,) of

otatement. _. Tho origin of' tho lIeparation of Deinl: and th1nk1n3

oannot be understood froo a study of logic, for the latter eroae

only aftor thio geparation had taken place. '1. can unders,ond

this aeperetton only in te~. of an unfoldine or the question /

of' Scing itoelf'.7

/

4

'l'htt key to underatandine the initial unity betwe.n Beine . ,

and thinking, between phyei8, .'nd logo., li08 in freeing oura.lve.

fro. 'the idea that the o:r1g1na.l meaning of logos and legetn ",no

·tho~ght, undorstanding, and reason. H8 In addition, lomes did

hot originally .ignlf,y speeoh, state=ent. Rathor, H~. legein,

Latin lOl"'f)rc, 1s; th" elme 1t9 the German word i le •• n ' (to p,ather.

oolleot, re&d).H9 Even after the word locea oame to mean speech,

disoourse, and statemont, Kit retained ito orig1aal meQnin~ in

- 10 the DonIe of t~elQtion of the ono to the other.'·

Phyeie. Beine. oric1nally moant "the pow9r that emer~os' ••• , 11

permanent presence ••• , appearing, manifeat presonoo. H Hera. ,

011 tu,and Pamon1delt~, in whom I1eidegeer finda & 's1~i1llri ty not

often aoknowledged by other ~nterpreters, 12 bOth indicate an

original oonnection between Being so under.tood and locos.

Heidec[yr first oi tee F"rae;ments On~ end Tt10 of Heraeli tUB. tIe

shall quo~ bot.h of the:. in full, in order to facll1aate the under- ,

stand1ng of' HddeWt'" onaulnll dlsoufJaion. . -

Fragment 1, But while tho 10r.9 remaing always this, men remain unoo~prehending (axyn~toi~ both before they have heard and just after they havo heard. For everything booomel a being in acoordanco with thio l{lgos, ~ !2!llor;on tondoJ but'they (men) re.emble those who have n~er in their experi-ence ventured anything, althour~ they try their hand at wordo o.nd works, such 8." I perform, actparatine all thingo 2.!:!. phylJin, RQoording tc) Beinl:) and explaining how they behave. As to the oth~r men (the other men a" they an are. !!2!. polloi), from thcmJ who.t they actually do ·when awake 1. hidden, just 1.0 what they h~vo done in aloep is hidden fro~ the~ afterward.

I~omont 2t Thoretore it io nec.~a.ry to follow it, i.e. to adhere to toeetherneeo 1n the Being; but thour,h the loros is this to~ethernes8 1n the being, tho man, live ao thougheaoh had his own underl'ltllnding (opinion). 3

5

HoideMer ooncludess it.,. 1) permanece and endurance are oharacte~i9tl0 of' tho 10&'0; '2} it 19 toeotherncoQ 1n, beines,

the togetht'Jrness of all baing!], th~t whioh gtathersJ 3) evory-

thing that happens, 1.e~ that oomes. into 3elng, et~nd9 ther.e In

acoordanco with this permAnent to~th.rneoG; thig 10 the doo1-

nflnt powera"14

How do wo know t.hat lOp;o0' thuD understood D.S "p~u·ma~ent.

c&thering," 1s to be identified with physica, nE)ingT ee are told

that ~en are 8~etol~ 'thoae who do not bring to~ethcrH tho

colleotodness, they indeed hear \forde but w1 thout he.~ding the

lof!,'Oo. There are thU(I' .two Idndg of hearing. ·.·~ore hearing

loattere and diffuseD itDol£' in uhat 18 commonly believed and

said, 1n hoatoaYt in doxa, appearanoe. True hearing has nothlne

to do w1 th elilr and mouth, but moano: to follow the 10m a and 15 what it ie, n.m$ly tho oolloctedneea of the bein& itself.-

I

FJ'8.(J!ICnt., 72 ~f' Herncl1tuQ &i:veo Heidegger the olinohing proof

or the orieinal identification of 1082& with physiol ·Fo~ what they associate with moat 010;61y, the loeoa, to it they turn

their backJ and what they enoounter every day seems Qtr&nge to

thea." NOw, that which men have always to do with and yet arc

alwlly. ~.l1en £'~om. 18 proclecly neing."Uen have always to do

with 'Doin~ in that they are alway. dealing ,,11th beinggsit illl

alion to them in that they turn away from Deing, becauDe they

do not ereop it but suppo.e that beings are only being8 and'

--- ---------------------------------------------------------~

6

nothing ~or •• ·16 Thralhl~~ ~bout in ~lngD, eaoh man holds

obstinately to hil100wn opinion and is thua prevented. from

"roilohL"1J1 out to what ;1:a gsth.r~d togother in 1 tllftlf. It 17

t:cerinc and S'pe~1dng aro. ot oO~1"SC, olofu!tly related.

ThUD Hcidogt!Or oan MY, aft(l)r .discusai'on of' true heG.dng and

of 1'!l8rO vorbia/30 (!peah "There can be true op~.ld.n~ and

hoaring only if they arodiroC'tod in, adVtl.hOe towurd Doing,. the

lo~o~. Only whoro th~ lo,~o dtocloseeiteelr doe. the phonetic

sound bocomo 0. word. Only where the Being of b.1n~ is he~rd

docla ti l>lOrO OIlOUal U. Atoning bocome 0. h~ar1nt. If 18 Those \'/ho

oannot hrin8 J2asoiuto lltand 1n the Doing of beings ceri neither

hear ~r "peak. Tht'ly oannot lIIaater tho word. thUG we 8ee" in

19~5, Q foreah",dowing or the, later ln~:i.Gtanoe on language 0.0 8.

key oloccnt in the rolation b.tweon Being and the eosenoe of man.

Out what does it mean to brlngOa~ein to etand in nolne?

Ueldo(",gor offor9 UO a. olue while at11l diecual1ng Hora.olituS!_ 19

Bein3, plnthel~" lof!C!s, ia only for th~ strong, for thoso who

engaco. aa We shall eee, with violence in the 8tru~elo with

Be'1ne. lIe see more 011111lr1y what ""hie meana when he dl&1oueao.

ncid.~r tranolateG, ~th.I'G 1s a ~c~proc8l bond between appre-/'

honsion and neing. u20 Rine!, Beine. i. of c~ur"e undorgtood in the oonoo of.' SQ1F1 .. omel'ging (from conceAlment), abiding (in the

l1C;ht) presence. lIoein 10 translated into Oerman 8.0 vcrhehmen,

/

7

10e., "to .Apprehend," And 10 g1v~n two complementary moaning., . \

ono of' t/hioh ctreDII.' "pandvity,1'I tho other a more "active' stance. I

-To Bpprohend reeno t.o eccopt, to le"t ~omcthln& (namely that \'1hioh

ShO\'I$ i toel r, which o.pperlra) aooe to one. Vfthne~en ~eano else --to h_iI' a ti1tness,. to question him and so determine tho facto,

to 8otnbl1ah how n ~ltt~r dtahd;.-. r.oein 19 Q ftroooptive hrine1nc-

to-atand. Hj1 1'0 auto op~Qka of' Q unity, r.ot in the Gonao of' --c~uivalenQoJ but in t~t of nthe b.loneinc-tocather of anta~niemo."22

Del~c Qnd npprehond1nr. ~ro'one in a'oont~nding genae.

Out who.t dosB thio mo&.n? The oneness 10 dUB to the fpot

that 1Ynppl"ohenoion oCOu~s fol' tho OQ,kO' of' ne1n&~ I1nd tJha.,ee 11'1

Bains· 0 power. the oonnotation of oontenU'on.l., duo to. the faot

that QPprohonaion muet not only let fie1n~ be, 1.e., let it enter -

into Ul1cono~nb:entJ it -t!unt 1.1so bring ~lng to st.arul,; just as,

"when troope P!,Opfl1"~ to receive thO' en8llY, it io 1n the hope of'

I!ltoppl~ him at. the very tealt.· or bt-1ne1ne )tim to stand. ,,2,

Apprehenclon beloneo to ne;'n~, OOOU1"of'or tho :lAko of te't1n~, but

only if it bl'1nea Beine t6 stAnd. "ne1ng -dOt:linateo, but bGODUSe

and lnsdi"G.r ao it dOltllnl.tea and appears; QPp_r1n~ and ~ it

24 apprehension ~Ugt nloo cocur.H -';he 'questi

8

proposition of Fntmonid~a, -Tho same 18 approh~noion and that

for tho vnke of which'~ppr~heno1on oocurs,w whiQh tello UD

thnt npprohGnoion b~~ongo to Seine. ouggeots that can too, if

he lo to 3~Qre in th1s apprehension, must belong to Being, in

!'not that tho GAA(')flOe of be1ne-hu:nan i» dotermined by the parti-

cular tte.nner in which man belon~9 to 8ein{l;. Apprehenoion, says

Ue1dor.eer" is 'preoisely what determ~nen the ~Qacnoo of boing-humnn I

approhonoion, 1.0 •• the receptive bnnetne-to-ntanct of Beine.

neine: and Q.}lprehennion. leo., mD.n, ~long together. r~oro preoieely,

• • • • Qpprohenaion i8 • • • a proceoe in whioh mQn first enters

into history I.. Q. b~ing. • • i. 0., ,(i.n tho. 11 teral eenle) oornoll

into Be1np:. ApprGhono1on 10 -not Q funotion tho. t r:tQn haa as an

attributo, but rAther the other way around:, apprehennlon is the

ho.ppening that'Ms man.,,25 rarmenldeo' mnxim exprooeos "a dofinl-. 26

tion of theGEllJOnco of mnn froe out of the eeoenoo of. Bains itself. It

But we still havo not dioeovored what it means to Hbeing ,

Do.Dei~t to stand in .Deing •. iI Belnn 1£1 Dot apart, differentiated, ln

eonr.1:ic:t, in pol~,o. tlC') leam who man 1& *~hon l!,o.n contendo with

bo~n8Sj. striving to brine them into thoir 8e1n!l' 10th, into Umft

and forn. that is to oay when he prefeetn something new, (not yet

prelent~,whcn, ho croato8original .pot,try, when he bUilds poet1oal1y. lf27

By cOl'llt"..onting on the, first ohorU8 Of S)ophooles· Antiren(). lIoit\o8eer /

toll0lu.1O'something of. this confrontation.

r~n, Sophooles olaim., is the strangest (to delnotaton) of -all th~t 10 otrange. The Greek word deinon nas two mean1n8s; in

1--

9

the prosent oontext, the firfJt of thoso dl~anlne:1!J refers to the

totality or beineo, the seoond to man. Firat, deinon means both

the overpowerinr. power that compelB panio fear end "tho colleoted,

91lent awe that vibrateo with its O\1n rhythm." That io, " • • •

.. where the overpowering irrupts, it .2!.!!. hold its overpowering po.for

in checKn~-whioh reak08 it still more terriblo and remote. Seoondly,

deinon ~ean9 ·one who U8es power, who not only disposes of power

(Gewalt), but 10 violent (~cwalt-tatlg), insofar as the usc of

power io the basic trait no~ only of his aotion but also of' hil

DaRein (There_be1ng).n28

\my 18 man delnon 1n this oecond senee? First, beoause

he belongs to Being and thus ·remains expo sod within this oyor-

powering power'; second, beoause -he gathers the power of' the

ov~rpowerlng, and brings it to manlfeGtneso. n29 He ia the :nOGt -powerful. de1notaton, becauAc he is hyiolent, in the cidst of the

,0 overpoworlne·"

Heldegger translates deinon alii "strange," in,the aenoe

of "uncanny· (unhemmliche) bec&use it is the uncanny which drives

U8 out of th~ "homoly," into the bDbomely, the unfamiliar (unhei~-.

l1eho). In add! tion, however, to living amid the strllnr;e, n::en

Ado.parte fro!!! his customary, famil1f1lr l1mita, bocause he 1n the

violent ono, who, tending townrd the ~tran~e in the Genae of tho

;1 over-powering, usurpaooeo the limit of the fa~ili.r.·

10

The denignation of man aD deinon is not merely a parti-

cular charaoterization of ~an. but expresnen -tho bosic trait of . . tho human casence, within whioh all other trait" must find their

'pl~ee.·'2 To undorstand this. we mugt experience ~the power of

appearance end the struggle with it as an easential part of Dasein.""

l1e ahall thu8 alao come to appreciate better what it meano to bring

Danein to stand in Bein8 and perhaps.we ahall come cloRer to an

) awareness of why the question of the eSlence of man, aD part of

the inquiry about Bein~, io *the very eenenco of hi.tofy._54

~he mention of the stru~le with appearanoe brings uo to ,

an cattier section in.!ll. \10 have now geen the i.mI:1edio.to context

in which the threo statements whioh are th~ subjeot of this paper

are expre8sed. ~e ahall return to thi~ nection on °Ootnr-'and

think1ne,* but now must look at the oeotion on "Being and app~ar-

anoe,' in order to determine the meaning of OQsoin'a stru~elo

with appearanoe.

The German word for appearanoe, Schein, actually has ,

three meanin?,8' 81) Schein .s radianoe and glow; 2) Schoin and

Gcheinen as appearin~. as coming to light; ,) Schein as mere appe~r

anco or semblanoe (Ansohein).H'5 The .eeond me.nin~ i, the condi-

tion of the posn1bility of the first and third meanings.

There 18. an inner conneotlon between aeing and appearance,

in that physl0, the realm of emer~ng and abidine. 1s also a

Wghin1ng appearing." Phyein i8 phalnosthal. Appearing, standing-

. ,7 tl.er-e, atandlng-ln-the-light, is "tho very euence of 8e1n8_·

Truth, alithela, unoonceaHlent 18 aleo thus one with the essence

(~eeen, the coa1ng-to-paes) of neine. sinoe whatever i8, by -definition emerges and becomes JUnifeat. itln ehotdnp.; ltC/elf. the

unconcealed 8S ~uch comes to stand. Truth as un-oonoealment 1s

. not an appendage to B.in~. ",a.

A conBequen~e of the fact that appearine is part of the

oSlence of Being is that Being, in appearing. takes on an aspect,

dome - . ..w l22!!. iii the rer,ard ... whieh a rr.Bn ata.nda, in .. broader senoe the reeard (Anoehen, looking-at, estoeo) which every being conceals and disolo8~s in ita appeAranoe (Au8Aehen) (eidos, ~) •••• The .spe~t whioh ~bein~ ha. in itaelf, and whioh it can offer only for this reason, cay in every case be peroeived from this.ot that point of view. Aocording to the diversity of viewpoint, the Q.opect that offera itsolf ohanges. Henoe the aopect i. always one that W8 take' and ~ake for our-selves. In experiencing and deallnc-With beings, wo are always forming views of their appeArance. Often we do 00 without looking c1000ly at the thing itQelf. In various ways and for varioue reason. we form a view of tho thlnfe ~e'form an opinion about it. Soaotlmes the view that we advo-cate ha. no support in the thing itself. Then it is only a view. an assumption. \'~e anoume~~ thing to/be thu. or thus. Then all we have 18 an opinion.

Thia i8 why we have the meaning of Sohein in tho oenso of

tnechein, semblanoe. Being, phyals, ftstande eooentially and honoe

necenoarlly and permanently, in the poas1bUi ty ot Rn appoarance

which precisely covors over dnd concelle what the being in truth,

, 11 40 '1. e. in uneonoealment, is.

Appearanco, then, bel:ongo to beings. '!'he 8tory of the

Greeks, until the rioe of the Sophlats, i8 a story of an enduring

12

I struggle to "wreat Beine fro~ appearance nnd preserve it amain At

, 41 appoarance,ft 1.e. in unoonoealment., This demands a truly great

effOrt, havlnp, "one eye too many,U as Holderl1n e'Y8 ~r Oed~puG,

for " • • • 'Ppearance not only makes beings as such appear as

what they actually are notr it not, only distorts the bein,,, whoso

QPpearanoe 1t 18, no, it even oioaks itself ae appeatanae insofar ,

.a it ohoWA itself aG Being. Because .ppea~Qnee thus e.centially

dlBtortu itself 1n ito cloalti~nd dlsaembilne, we rlehtly say

·42 that appearance d~celve8.· - BGing, uneonoealment, Gppearanoo--

these three open up an area whioh Heidegeer oallo erraneo.

Two 8uo~c9live dlfforentlation8 were detrl.nded at the

beelnnin~ of Greek philosophy. 1lelng from appearance, and Being

from non-Being •

• • • the man who hold. to aein~ ao it ~ens round hlm·8nd who.e adherenoe to bein8D is determined by ~io adherence to Reine, muot tak~ three path.. If he is to take over Daoein 1n the radiance of Being, h~ ~UBt bring Rcing to 'stand, he must endure it 1n appearance and .~inGt a,p~ar.ncet and he must I. ' wrest both eppeap&nqe and Being from the abyss of non-Bsing. ~

Not only differentiation, but decision Is oaU.,d for. "EVen

the docl.i,on conoerning tho .."ds resided in (tho) dec1Sion" Itade 44

at the beelnnln~ of philo90phy~

Parmen1doo opened these three path.. Leeein end noein

characterize the firot path~ the way of' Bo1np;. ThiG way 10

called by Parmenld •• 'noedful. "ee "hall return to thla later.

Tho second path, the way of non-Being, oannot be traveled, for it

has no "1s.· but it mU9~ be conl1dered. Tho third path, that ;01'

appearanee, 1s taken by those who take disorientation as their

eu1de, "the brotherhood of' thoae who do not d1ff'9renti8te. 1I , , It appears to be the path of' neing, and thus countless men travol

It·-and ,lose theJ:I8elvea entirely._ '

Parcenidea does not believe in "primal innocents,- in

the Ileil*er of 8eine and truth. It laneoelilcBry to experienoe

th1t!i third path. to knoW' it a.s 8uch, if Being 10 to disoloAe itself -- J

.~lnBt it. The superiority of knowledge 1s "tven only to .tho ~an

who experiences every;th1n6, who undertakes -the venture of' Delnr;,

non~Being, and appearance, a.ll .. tonee.· who brings Daoein 1'.0

stand 1n Being through de-eision,

Uhat 1a the Cround of ths cloee bond between Oeing and

weeming? This 10 rovealed in lIeraclituG' flaying. "Physis

lqY1>tleothal phile1, Ii i.e., seine (emerginr;'appeoring) inolines

intrinsically to .elf~cono.alm.nt." Heldeegor interpretsl

Sinoe Being means emer~ng appoarin8, to issue-forth from concealmsnt--ooncealment, ita origin 1n conoeAlment, belonns to it essentially. Thio origin lies in the 030enoo of Boing. of tho manif.at 8.0 such. Being'inoline8 back toward it, both in "rest BiA~noe and ~ystery end in banal diorottion end ocoultation. l

Riohardson'. comment. ,at this point are very helpful.

He \ aske why lleideggor \ doeo not oonsider the p088ibiH ty of' some

being without concealment of Any find, "transparent self-dioolo.ure t ..'

&s ouch, "And ougeesta that ouoh a being would not cominwi thin tho

sphere ot the problem whlop l~ldegg.r i8 here oonoerned with • .

For Ifcidegp;or is conoerned only with finite beines and finitude

is procisely what comport. obscurity, c~nce~lcent.

14

For 0 bftine 18 thnt whioh oomeo to stand on its own in nbld1ne fashion by revealing itself in the lieht of truth. To take up a otand thus 18 to define the ilmlto (therefore cooports tho finitude) of' that bUng. Now this iifin1t-lzineH of a being 18 not a oonatrictttanrrom without. Still less is it a dofiDienoy in the ,beln~ by reason of some dotatmentlll defoat. On the oontrQry, it, is the bein~'8 reetriotin~ of itsolf to its own confineB, itA oelf.cont8inmont,hence 1 tho Being of' tho being by whioh it 18 whAt it 18 in diotblction from what is not a babg. For n boinp-, to co~e to AtBnd on its own, then, meano fbr it to establish a frontier for itself. It is the senso of -frontior" that tho Greoks B8ve to the . word lend" (t.l~.), 00 that this ftend" meant not cioply tho point at \fhioh t!'te being ceAse. to be, f.)ut the endinr.; (Endunr) of the, being in the sense of comlne-to-perfeetlon (Vollendung) __ So it i~ that the limit -nd ond are not that point at whioh • be1n~cea.ee but where it beeins to~ ••••

• • • Beins lsthat tty whioh bein~8 otand on their own in the light of' truth, to take Q ntend 18 to be eelf-contained within one' 8 limite, so. to be l:1.mitod. All emergenoe into non...eonoeGllment. theref'oro. 1* fin1 te, BC. Umi ted by cOhtinual concealment, and this ~ ~lrtuo 2! ~elnB \toel~. by reaoon of whioh emettr,en0o take. pl.c,. '1'he func1aatental r .. eon why phya18 necessarily conceals itself !ll revealln~ itself. and therefore why Being lA inextricably int.rtwined~lth Deeming-to-be, i8 that the Being in question 10 finite. ,

In o~dor to liIee more clearly what it moan .. that Being

1nolines to concealment both in mystery and 1n banal d19tor~ton,

ao well as fbI' a fuller eluoidation of all that is mentioned

1n the .. bove paragraph from !:!t We must look baek to tho leoturo

of 1930, Ys! \":e8an ,~ l"ahrheit (!:!). Only il 0108e look nt

tlu$ locture Will enable ue to ooe with muoh olarity what the

l!oidop'.ger of' !.: mieht have mean' by -bting1ng l)af'jein to stand

in, Being; It .:!! helps us t() "experience the powor of' appoaranoe 117

and the IItruggle. with 1. t .,. an essential pa.rt of naRein."

I

I ' I

I

15

As is obvious from tho 'title or the leoture; the

quostion to be raised about. truth 10 an essential quoatlon, An /

ouoh, it must fix its attention on hthe one thln~ that is the . ' lIS .

co.t"k of' 'truth' of overy kind. n The oonventional dootrine of

truth finds th1e esnential ~t"k in Q twofold correspondence: • ,"fit"oUy t.he correspondence of 0. thing with the idea of it ~o oon-

I coived in advanee, and seoondly the correspondence of that which

10 intended by the statement with the thing Itgelf..~49 Truth io thus concqi~cd a. riehtneBa(Riohtigkeit), aoadaequ,tio rei

!.!! intellectum. In medioval ,Christian theolo1!Y', ,ad.equatio

~ (oreandBe) !! intellect,um dl~intlr'l guaranteos veri ta~ as , . adCl.(!)quatio intelle.'tus(b,Ul11Iln1) !.i ~(draatllm). In modern philo-

8ophy, tho objeot or thing oontormo to resson'u lde~ of it, and

reason is a law unto it801f; not requiring any baoie in contonftlty

to the divine 1doa of It& tho workings of earthly reasonine ha~e I -

• self-evident universal validity. Untruth 10 either tho non-

conformity of the thing with it~ essenoe or th~ non~conroroity of'

otatecent with th~g. Untruth 18 exo~uded from the nature of truth

and thus -can be tlef't out of' account when it is a matter of oomin8 , 50 to er1pe with the pure e •• enoe of truth.-

Or thig conventional n.tion of' truth Heide.geer says. The impression i8 eivon-wron~ly-that thie def;ini tS.on of' the CBsenoe of truth 1s independent of tho explanation of tho eo.en-tial nature of all that 'is,' of ito very Beln~--whlch explann-tt.on a.lways involve. 0. corrospondinl) explanation of' the essential natut"e of man as the yohicl$ and perfecter of the intellectul.1e.,1

! '

In other words, it leave" out of acoount the r~latlon between

Re1n~ and the essence of O~, i.e. truth as unoonoeAlment. He

ls not claioing that I.sz;,eC!!lent is In:posoible or that this ooncop-

tion is without v.lu~, but that agreement i. not tho essonoe of •

of truth.' By eDGenCe he meAno °the baste or the inner poeeibl11ty,i52 '-

i,c. th~ condition of pooll1b111ty.

,In the aeoond chapter or the lectura Heldeeger considers

thls queatlon of the 'inner pOlnlbil1tY,of acreemont," 1.e. of

the agreemont of a proP2nitlon or reprosontative ~tater"'cn.t to tho

thing repre.anted. Hore he 19 interestod simply in detailine

what this posaibUity implies; in tho next chapter he discusseD

ito oondition or basis. The agrc~ont of a reprooentat1ve ntnte-

~ent with the thine repre6ontad~-2 that 10 to S8y, -The reproaen-- .

tative $tatement hac its .ay'about the thing roproaouted, stating 53 .

it to be~!! it i8. ft . Ropresentation 19 defined as "letting

~omething take up • position opp~D1te ,to uo. ao an Obje9t~·54 The \'forigin"1 oeat lt of' this aftrn~ont dQOS not lie in tho repre-

/oentative statement. nor even in the repreGen~tion. but in that - 55

Heide~or refers to Q9 ftthe openhOOs of comportment." Rcpre-

eentat1on, as here def1nod, dependa.on, there beln~ nn open domain

across which th" thing or object must come) it: must approach Un

while standing faot in itself and manifesting itself.. Tho open-

noas of the open domn!n .1s not created by repreoon~t1on but 'ont&rod

into by opon comport~nt, whioh alwayo relates to something open GB

ouch, to sooething which is manifest, prOBont, to S!! ~eiendo.56

17 I

The open domain iG Irwhat §!. called the t'ot'ld. the ,matrix of'

re1ationsh1pc (Total r.:ean1ng!'uln~oo) tlhich oonnt1tut.eo the. hori-

zon of" There-beitlg" potenUaUtieo-itself' not It bein~ but that

""thin which Thoro-being and oth~r bolngo meet when one of' theee

potentiAl relatione comod-to-paso Qo an oncounter.-57 Sf oo~1n~

aeroDs this oI1tm dOl!laln toward us, beinr;a beoo~e capable of' expreft-(

o~on by taking up their .tand bofore open o6cportment !! and ~

they are ~ they aro.. 'the "pennesa of' comportment issues in .

aubm1o.1on On the part of the statement t.o a directive enjo1nin~

o.greeoent to beings aa thoy elre.. aecaue of' open cO!1'portl!lont,

b~lng. can become .. criterion fbr tho adequaoy of' the ~tatomant;

thus open comport~ent Ie in ito.lr Q kind of' oriterion.

But whBt is tho basia of the poesibl1in of' opon com-

portment 1 taolf e.nd of' i til f'unoU,oning ae a cd tori-on '1 Oomport-

:ont, to be a criterion. must be somehow pre-oBtabl1shed, pro-givon;

not only tha.t, it muat sOTtleh~" have f.!;~cd i~nelf' (.2!2.h f'roip;ceoben

hntl eo that it can become open to Q manifestation which oor-ot

aoro •• the domain or openness to it. It 1. tree preo1101y in ord~r to submit to itaelr RB 8 binding openneos and thUD to reveal

I

what approacheD. Comportm,nt mu.t 'be free to enter into the open-

nea. or the open domain and relate to what 18 ttanlrest in luch a

\-lOy that it reveal. it a" it 1.. If open eOl:1portmcn~ ia the basis

of the p08Dlbl1ity of rlthtneoo, freedom io the balis of' the possi-

bility of open co~portrn.~t. Thue freedom is the ground,othe, ultimate

eeoence of truth.58

18

But what in freedomT It 1s preoinely the,lettlnr.-be of 1

what is, ~ Seiende. And -to let a being ~ what it 1s moons

participating 1n something opon and it .. opennolJt:3. 59 The open-

nese of what 19 open i8 the original meaning of ~ al'e\hea, the

Unconcealed. 1~o word which wo UBuelly tranalate aB 'truth,"

alethoia, would be bottor transl~ted as ·unoonoealment' or Hreveal_

mental, ouoh a translation would lead us beyond our notion of truth

fIl9 propositional rightness to IIth8t still unoooprehendod quality: '60

the rievea.lodneas and revelotion of beln~B."

nut what of letting-boT tettinR-be is seen in the

retirement before be1n~., 'RO that they may reveal themsolves

~s what and how they are, into wh~ch the partioipation in the - - , opennep8 of what iA open dov~lops. Open comportment, as

letting-be, is wka.U .• ent exposition into the unoonoealment

61 of beings.

It 18 at this point 1n the works we shall study here'

that the relation of our question about Being and the essenoo

of ~en (ok:.lstenoe) to history first ecer~eo, and iddeed in

a oryptic faghion. H1!!Itory ber,ino \fith ek-sistence, with the

fir.t experience of the question; ~!!i 2!! Seiende, ~ ~

~. what are beingsT ~he totality of beingS-Be-such 10 here

ziven the name phYAis. nature, in the scnae of an ·ynfold1ng 62

presenoe." The preservation of the unconocalment of this

unfolding pr~lI!ence in the quoot £lor beinCG 88 such marks the

/

\ -

19

"The initial revelation of beinRG-ib-tot8lity, the quest for

beings as such; and the beetnnine of the history of tho ~e~t

are one and the aa~e th1ng.~63

Freedom in the sense of lettine-be tenot a property

which t:;an posaeoses; rather, freodom ao ek-t:Jiotent, revelatory

There-being, po.oesses man, conferring on hirJ! the relationship

to beings-in-totality which erounds hiGtory~ Truth as uncon-

cea.lment and history thus are related at least in thin, that-

they are grounded in freedom, conceited iu re~~ln~-be. Freedom

io not only the bash' of the possibility of the approximation

of repredentation to beint,G; in addition, because man-ek-sietg,

he "haa his history and all its possibil1 ties guarcnteed him

in the reielation of b.ing8-in-total~~y. The manner in which

the original nature of truth oomee-to-fass eiveo rise to the '. 64

rar~ and n1mpl, decision8 of history." Only ek-s~8tent

Danein which lete-becan be confrontod with e freedom in 'the

sense of a "choice between actual possibilities." TWo sensea

of freedom, it would aeem, cre brought out here, the freedom

whioh ek-siAtencc itself i! and the consequent freedom of'

c~o1oe between or amone: possibilities, among which would bn

the possibilities of affirming or denyIng ek-sintence a~

lettin~-be. Thit'! latter point must be further qualified.

Roth the essenoe of truth and the consequent relation'

to hiBtory aro cocplicated by the fact that truth, precisely!!

20

freedom, _prevents historioal man :£'rom really letting being" be

what they are and asa they are. "Being' are then oovered up and

dintorted. IlluAion come.8 "into ito OWl. The essential negation

of truth, it. 'dis-elllence,' makeR its appearanoe • .,65 This

din-essence 01' truth 19 not, however, due to man's nep,ligence, since

ek-aiatent freedom ienotfa. property of' man. "Untruth must derive

from the essence of' tlfUthiti t~el f. 66 The non-es.sence of truth

i9 par~ of its essence and not £limply to be equated with the

wronmneaa of an opinion.

It 18 the din-totality' aspect of "boinr,s-in-totality"

thtlt is at the root of the problem for Heidoegor 1n 2. '!'hi 8

"in-totaU.tyM" 1n the porcpeotive of' eve,ryday Rctlvitieo, ren:ain$

indeterminate, since it cannot be understood in terms of what is

Mready-to-hend" and mont easily thought of •. Be1nen-~-totality

remain conce-led, despite the faot that 18ttin&-be lets eDoh , ,

thing be aa it i9 only beODuoe oomportment 1s attuned to beingsa-

in-totality. Lettinr.-be is a ooncoalment, a j19simulatlon of

This conoealment is prior to all revelation of thio or

that being Rnd to the letting-be of beines. But lettine-be can,

by revealing, conceel ~ot only beingo-1n-totaliby but this very

concealmen~ itself. Thin Hoideeger" refers to as "the dissimulation

67 I of the dilsimulated,· "mystery." The dlAoiJ::ulation of the

d~eGlmul~t'dn' of beln~-in-totality, mystery, "pervados the wholo -of man I s There-being.

21

l1yetery is thus the non-oanenoe of truth. Yet it rema.ina

essential to the essonce of truth and not, 9S we would ordinarily

euppos~. indifferent to this esnonce. When man remains fixod in

the region of the controllablo and pr~ctioable, he displeyn "an

unwillinq;neso to let the dins1muJaUon of tho diDain:ulat.ed hAve

full dominion. ,,69 l'ystery, the very -dianimulat~on of dlosimulaUon,

it.elf becoJ!1es lOl.'t 1n oblivion. It is in this fore;otfulnoss of

oystery that man 19 abandoned to hie own resources, clin~inr. to i

the "certainties of Aelfhood' and operating from bnly th~ most

immediate of needs and intentions. Ek-siatent man thUD in-Aiata, /

"Ue1, obstinately holdo fa.t to that 'which beines, os though open

70 of and in themselv~s, ofrer hi:n-." He il.'l still ek-sistent, sinen /-

he takes beinp;9 as 8 moasure and ['.uide, but as turned away from

the mystery he eimulianeouoly in-eiats.

The forr,etfUlness of the dissimulation of d1snimulation

in called by Heide"ger ~,Irre, "errance." Errnnce is part of the. const! tution or ntructure of There-heinr,. It 10 'tho e8senUal

counter-ensenco of the originsl essence of truth (oinoe) it opens

-out DS the manifeGlt theatre for all counterple,~· to essential

t.ruth." 71

'nle wrongneu or inadequacy of a judeiDent is seen by

Heideegcr to be the moet ouper:f'icial way of erring. "Tho erranoe

in which historical -man must always walk, which maketl hie rond

erratic, if' oGsentially one with the Jr8nU'es't oharacter of beintl's.

Erranoe dominates man through and throu~h by loadinr. himanRtroy.d72

,

22

On the other hand, by reason of the very .berreti.on (8eirrun",) of.

errence, elln is given the posoibility, which 'he can all-fays "oxtract

from h1~ eo~ence," of ~ allowin~ erranee to lead him to overlook

mYRtery.7~ HichQrdson interprets:

(Erranco) toppretHJeS' man and by thin oopresAlon attains Ii certain d01Dino.tiol'1 over the mystery. insofar 89 i't keeps the myst~ry a victim of forgottenneB'. Thus There-being muot submit to what seems to-be a double a1terltya the oppreosion by err~noe Gndllt the sAme ticc the domination of the myotery. lhe result is a tension in There-being in the form of a dis-

- treaD out of the oc>nstrElint\tmposed upon 1 t from thi s doublo searee. errence on the one hand, rny9t~ry on the other. 1here-being oscillateo endleo91y between the two. '!'he non-truth which we call 'errence' and the non-truth whioh wo oa11 'mystery! co~bine, and both to~ether, forming 8S they do the complete non-essenoe of truth, help to constitute the full essence of truth itself, so. that essence which includes within' it~.lf it. onn moet proper Don-essence, therefore neePtivity •••• (But) whon There-beine oomprehende

"err.nce as such. it recognizes it to be but the reverse aide of 1to-own forgetfuln~ss of the myatery, and thio 1v ipso facto to re-colleot ~he mystery. Dy this ro-oolloction, There-being is already under way tow.rdA a ~urrender to dominatl~n by the myotery throur;h nuthentic- resolve in! to regard. 7 ,

There-bei~g becomes open to mystery by letting-be the total

ensemble of boings as 8uoh. This is a more profound 'and ori,inal

asking of the queotion of the essential 0090nce of truth than

io accoopl18hed even by loc.tine the condition of propositional

rightness in freedom, for this latter reoognition, important ~n

it is, ha$ not yet opened up the essential character of

reeolve in its orientntion to ~ystery. in itD enzing ~ 2!

erranee ~ mYRtery. The que'tion that is ask~d in authentic

renolve in the question ot tho Baine at beingo itself.

The quest~on of the Bein8 of beings captures 'in words the

eoeential freedom of ek-ai.tence. Heideg.tter maintains that thoBe

who h~ve ears for this question determin~ man's place in history.

The initial raia1ng of thh question b also the beeinnin,g both

of philosophy end. of 1 ta counterpart, sound co=on .senne become, ~

SophiAD, through the b~shlngAor questioning. The medlt.tion~ of ~

philosophy have. r,entlenesa in their facing of myotery, in,thoi~ ,

refusal to deny the dissimulation of what-is in totalltYJ their

open res~lvei9 also marked by a hardnesn which forces the eSlonce

of di;simul*t1on into tho open. By doin~ BO, philosophy brings

the question of the ee.enOe of t~th into easential coincidence

with the quostion of the truth of essence, i.e. of nein~ itself, I

for the eo.entia1 core of the ek-sistent freedom of letting-be

whioh is ,the' baBis of the possibility of propositional ri8~tness , is to bo found in di.slmubtion and errance, in the fiaelf-dissi-

mulation er the unveiling o( the 'meaning' of wh&t we call 'Being,'"

i.e. com1ng-to-pr~oence. ~e original euenee of truth- ,11e8 1~ tho -

unveiling of prestmc1ng (Being). which conceal. itself 1.0 it I

reveals itself, arid which. in H.s relation to .k-A1stent freedom - f

(the essenoe of man) erounds the possibility of open resolve .,

toward the mystery of dio81mulat10n and of errance, abandonment

to forgottenn.as of the mystery.

Riohardson e~lains more fully the proposition, ~Tho

essence of truth is the truth of essence":

24

In this categorioal form, the propoaitlon does not appear in the original text, but is first formulated in the note to the second edition (1949). Yet even 1n the original it is suggeeted-more reticently ••••

• • • • The author does not say explioi tlt until 1949 that (Eosonce, ~eRen) ie to be taken no n verh, hut there 10 no difficulty In-;;;lng that thin was what was intended elso in 1930. He does say in the original, however, that in the concept of "Essenoe· • • • philosophy thinks Deing, II • • • which' \1e have beenaccuatomed for II long time to consider only as beings-(as-Buch)-in-their-totality. Ii How to th$ concept of belncs-as-euch-ln-their-totallty cor.e.ponds what the early Greeks meant by physis, 80. not any particular sphere of beings but tho whole ensemble~ • ••• and, indeed, in the ~enee of the process of emerging-into-presence. • • • " Uelng in the senoe of Essence, then, menns oo~ine-to-presence, and '. 'beine. ~c. that-whioh-ill. or thllt .. which-is'!"open, is tho.t-\tlt11oh-comeA-to-Q-presence. • • • Beinr:; • • • holds

. GWaYI it 1; en emerglng-into-prooence that is an "origin,· that ~~e8 the initiative with which philosophy in the ~;.Gt began. _

\

The finitude of truth i. due to the fact that Being itself ,

is essentloll1 neeatlved, and not limply to tho finitude of

There-being •

• • • Errance 10 so ln~cribed in Being 8.8 a mod~lity af ita intri.naic ne~tlvity that, although interior to Being, it opens up as itBel~ a type of open do~aln which in Deing's antl-es.ence, where c6ery posaible fashion of contacinatlng truth hac free play.7 '

Heidegger does not as yet link this ne.g8tivltY,of Being

closely with History. Indeed hin discussion of' the rolation of

what he has said concerning freedom. mystery, errance, add truth

to the probl~m of 8the rare and simple deal.tons of history" ie

problelI!aU.c, to .ay the !ell~t. Certainly it 18 not at an cle~r

from E why the question concerning .. the eosenoe of'man in itn

relation. to Being is the veryelioence-of history, although thb

much Deems to be said, in other words, even in ~1. -

25

Finally, as is again n.ted by RiohardQon, thought 1s

conceived 1n I!l ttto-fold manner in !!!.I as pro~eedlng from There-

being in resolve end as proceeding froo Being itself in the ftut~er-

anOB" or -artit6"*lvenesl' of the ontological ~lfferenoe 'between

Bcing and ~eingo. The senae ear the latter meaning Dnd ~he

oonneotion between the two mellnings iGstill obscure.

We return now to EH. Our dl.oua8ion of '1W t18S prompted ....... ...... by Heldegger'. interpretation of ~armenides' th~ee ways and 'in

pt.rtiouler by Parmenidee' saying. "Pqlais kryptoathai, ehilti."

1.e'. !lDcing (emergine appearing) inclines intrinsically to oelf.

concealtrent. If \fe can aee more ele~rly now why H'e1degeer interprets

Parmenidee to 'say that concealment belongs easentially to Being.

Ue have now a olearer pioture of the theme of strugglowith the

power of appearance which will mark the reot of our discus8ion or

Tho effort to interpretParmenldes' sta:tement, "!2.l!!!!.

~ noein estin ~ ~'elnalt' (IThere is a reciprocal bond between

approhension and Being") had taken Helder.eer ~nto an expoBition

end Analysis of SophooleD' first chorus in Antigone, whore, £18 we

have ce'en, man 10 depicted a, the etrongeat of 8,11' that 1a 'trange, because ho ~oth remains exposed within the overpowering power of

be1ngs-*n- totnl1ty end beoause he gathof9 it. power and brings

it to manlfeotncsB. ~an 18 violent aea1nst the ovorpowering, cast

out of relation to the familiar and de.U.ned to ruin and oatllQtrophe.

r -

I •

/

26

The vlalent mea are the creators who, "pre-eminent in the historical \

place (£2118) •••• beoome at the same· time apoliA, without oity

and pl'oe, lonely, strange, .nd alien, without issue ~mld beings-in-

tot&llty, at the same time without statute and limit, without

etruoture and order, beoauoe they themoelveo am cre~tor9 muat firot -create all thi8.·~7 At leaet in this sense, then, we CDn nee gome

rell.tio~ between the Be1n8"':%IAn cOrrelation and history. ThoBe

men who uee power to creste, who Gre violent against the over-,

powerina, are the erectors of the Eolla in the senee of the site

of history. History is not a matter of development or evolution;

rather i t~ beginning is the otrangetllt and miehtie.t.

tnat comes aftorward i& not &evelopment but tho flattening that results from mere spreading out; it is inability to retain the bec;inning •••• That strangest of all beings !!. what ho is beoau$o he harbora ouch 8 beeinning 1n whioh every-thing all at once burst from 8upe~bundBnoe into the over-powering and atrove to master it. _

The overpowerin3 io eapokcn ot by Sophoclea iri terms. on

tho one hand, of the nea, the enrth, the aniPlD.1, nnd, ,on. the other

hand, of lanGUoge, undcratartcHne, feeling, pa::Jsion, buUd1ne. The

latter group reigns ~ithin man but as a power thnt he mU8t take

upon hi~8elf.19 Theae arc not powers-which man usea; rather they . ~ ~ '-

olono onable -him to be a man. ~~ finds hiD way to t~ and thus --finds himself ns the violent one, the wielder of pow~r. TheBe

powera. no less than tho,e of earth, sea, and .nl~al, must, be

mBoterod 1n violenoe. It mart mAsteratheeo pow ••• , then "beings

27

open u~ ae ouoh when man moves into them_SO One of tho major

queations which we w~l1 have to raioe 1n: in the "Letter on

Humanism' Gnd laterwr1 tingn, does man still find himself pro-

oisely as the violent one, the wielder of.' power, when he finds;

hie way to language, under.tanding, and b~ldingT

Ono way in whioh the vlo1~ce of man moveD with rerer~noe

to the pow.~ of the overpowering is'through techne, knowledge aD

flthe 1;nsistent looldn~ out beyond what 10 given at ,any time. i,81 .

Cuoh looking out is what brines Being to ato.nd in the work, stabiliz~s III

it i~ lomethin8 present. Violenoe QS feohn; comes up aga1n8t the

ovorpowerlnc Ds diko. 'the governing structure whioh compels adap-

ta t10n a.nd compliance. ~82 ~~an Violently oarriee Deing into the

.\ overpowerln~ but he can never fully master it.The confliot ereotes 1

the p088ibility~no, the necesoity--of ean's disa.ter. ·Violonce

against the preponderant power of Be!ng ~ nhatter, ll~1net

Being, 'if.' Being ruleo in 1 t. ealence, ~s phye1s.. as emerelnp;

power"88~ Riohardson interpt'etsa

aeing io emorgent Power, but emergence 8s such implies con-cealment out of which, or within whioh, it takes place, so that thie conoealment ~non-emergonce, negativity, f1ni!ud~) 10 intrinsic to the proce8o, not only in ito inception but in its duretion) when the emereenoe comee-to-pass in a 'place' of di1JololJure, therefore takes-'plo.ce' in I. There, this, t90. MUot be permeated by negativity (finitude) and thorofore comes to on end which permeates it at overy moment from ,the very

/ beginning; this t1lwllys inttnanent ending may be oharacteriz.ed at) doath (when There 1s oonsidered in n more anthropological context) or ac biing daDhed to piecee (if the context remain 'ontologic..,,' -wher.e Being is considered a" dynamic pOt-ler), and lango.ee ~ accordingly. Briefly: the Thore !!. potentiality-unto-death (unto violent dia1nt.gration)~ becnuse Deing'Q emergenae unto truth, whicg4takes plaee in it And through it, 10 ineluotably finite.. .

/

28

In line with the gen$ral movem~nt Of the later Hetdogger, Being tokeo explioit pri~aoy ov~r Th.re-boing in tho conception of' dsath. .

• • • \fha.t claraoterUI •• the finitude C?f' 'There ••• io grounded in the ihevitably finite character of the emereence 01 Being into truth. It 1s subject, then, to tho some lRW whioh dictates that Being necessarily cOnceal 1 teel'f in rev.eal1ne; i t8f)lf, 8C.. that Being be inextricably intertwlend with seeclng-to-bez all emGr~nce i8 finite.85

7.~C1n htll been thrown into the di oaeter .. 'bound a.ffliction

of' There-being because the overpowering, Oeing,

, ••• in order to appeat in its power, require ... place, a Icene of disolooure. The .etenc. of' beln~human opens up to us only When understood through thla need compttled by aeing it.elf. Tho there-being of historical man meanSl to be po.lted oe the breaoh into whioh the prepondorant power of' Deing burets in its QP~eGrlng'8~n order that this breaoh itself' should shatter against ne1nr..

Beine accocpllehes ~toelt ao history in the There-being of hi.torical

mart. Human ,There-being 1a "nn incident, the inoident in which J _ ,

Buddenly the unbound powers of neing co~o forth and a.rb _caom-

pl1ehed os hiotory" throuIIh the violenoo of the one who finds hill \

, w.y to\laneu~eef ~owlodge, and buildine and to maetering the

onvlronment.

The reciprooal relat10nahip between teChne and diki is , -

·is the same relationship a. that between noein and ainai in . "' .

parmanides' maxi~, ~~~ noein eotin ~ ~ e'~ai. Appro-

honsion in ita bond with Being d~andn violenceJ violenoe i9 a

need. endurod in struggle" and apprehension if' expr"nsly rele-ted

to tho logos, which is the ground of' being-human. Thus o.ppre-

honoion is to Being 8.stechnc to dilcftJ there is Q need f'or

I'

29

\

'violenoe in the stru~gle with d1ke, and techne i. the violence or -know~edge, tho de1non which is m3n.

Thuo Heidet!~r proceeds to show three things,'

1. Appreheno1on, 1s no mt!Ire prOCltOfl, b,ut a de-ctsion. 2. Apprehona1on ,stand. in an elsential kinoh1p with the

locos. Tho logos io a neG\i. ,. The logOs is the eaaentla.lfoundation of Innguage.

AB ouch it is a Atrueglo and the ground on whioh manto historical There~bB;ng io build in the mid8~ oftbe esaent .e Q whole. ,

,In detenoe or. the first etotcment, F.e1de~er relies on

his previous char.cteri7~tion of .ooin as a. receptive attitude • 4 4

toward the appearing or be1nes. It ean be 80 only if it cuts ~otween the three pcths of' Being.OO non_Being,89 and .PJeara~co, 90

. • I

and, thus is i helf' .. de-eioion (~tsehe,1dun,..) !o~ Beine, ~rein8t·

nothing, end a 14trut,gle wi t~ appearanco. It must use violence to

nohiqve perseverance a.~inst everydaynenu. -The violence o~

this decisive departure nlong the path to the Boing of heinen

wrosts dn out of' hi. homs in what happen. to be nearect Qnd . 91

moot familiar to h1m.~ \

As ~lQhardGon notes,92 this decision for Being, combined

with the recognition that ~ere-being o~nnot overpower the Over-

powering and the Q.cc~ptahce of thl0 recognition. 1. equiVAlent to

the 'llrearolve ff of' S7. -'ro resolve 1s to wUl# it 10 to ohooso authentioitYJ it is tor Theh-being to let itself' bt'l its .oe1£', it 1s to beoome free for the ox1eenalos of what it 18J it i8 tow111 its own oon~enital freedom, by whioh it 1. There and to will it as finite,' it is

, There-beine6a "illine;neos to open-unto-neing to tho very 11m! t of ito power. 9, ' \

~o .

Thero-being goee about-this wl111ng~t 1t. own, tinite opennOID

to B.in~ by willing to lcno~J to \tdnd withi~ the Belng ot being!

ao manit.ot, and therefore to question. In partioular it io to

ask the q~e.t16n which l'a the key question 1n .:ru.. "\.ny are there -

beinl!lI rather t.htlrt not~ngt· e.nd, wen !!tore ultimately, lino ... doeD

it stand with Being?- It io 1n this eenae that the rlrst~nd

third 8to.tet!l~t. of' Iteidel!~r with which we bagan thit paper

Are, it 8oems, to be understood: tho determination or the easenoe

of ~ in ~!ver enqanawer but e.sentially ft queotion; and, the

quaRtion ot what I$.n io mu.t always be tAken in 1 ts esoentl~l bond ,

wi th the quostion of how it atanda with Being.

The o.'ocmd statement leado neldeeger into D. diacuuion o~

the ilt&tement ~lhioh w111 prove so ilI'portant in \':ao helent denken? c -2h.!:!' ~ le.r!i.~ !.!. noein -t'aon, ~en.i, ",needful 1s tho eathered aet-tins-forth as well no the apprehension: beings, 8e1ng. ft r~e1n

arid le,1'8in are mentioned tobether and oalledrtneedful. Logon ill

equated 'by Beideeeer w1 tn apprehenSion and si(1Lifies the human act I ,

of violenco by ~h1ch Being 1. ~thered in its toeetherneoft. A

reciprocal gathering (loeos) is involved here I Qcollectlon of'

oneself amid dieperalon and • ~thering of being; i.to the . . togetherness of ~ergont, abiding prelen¢~ (Being). The firot

10620. ~o ingathering, ~rir8t bringA being-human into ito essence, -.

sO thrusting it into horuolossnoB$.*94 Only frem thio l~l!ip can ;

noein take its esoenC$ a. gathering ~pprehen.lon. Doth to~.ther. -I

as the noed of approhension and oo11ootlon, constitute the essence

" f I

or be1n~humnn, whioh itsolf i. Hn b~ine-driven into the freedom

of underfaaking ~~hne." 'this, sayo Heidegger, is tho very "charo.cter

of' history. w95

In this ~onn&ction the .econd ctatement of ltoldee:eor with /

which we bee;.n this paper cltn b. further clarified. A.fter stating

thnt -the determination of the esoonoo ot,man is alway_ el~ntlnl1y Q

que~tton. ft8ideeeer note. that "the aoking of this question and the

deoieion in thin question ate hintorloal, and not morely in a gonoral

sonse; no, thle question i~ the very os.onoe or hi~6ory.· The

quostion 111 that of' how it otande with Relnr,l the deoidon 1. lAO

roeard 11 tho opening up of ~ero.baing to Being, thu8 the lOe!in

and noein of' Yarmenideo. By this op~ninc-up of There-beine through

thin queptlon h~.tory comoe-to-pa.s. ~Th1e will be evident when

we recall (trom ,Q!) that hl.,tory, as tiee itsolf (of' \·thlch it ie

but eft expl1oitation). 10 the comin6 or Being, (tuturo) t~ Q .elf that alre.dy~",o-hQvin&-been (p.8t)~ thUB r~ndering present

(present) !! betngo tho bein~. \:11th tihich it deale. Now the

poolng of the De1ns-queGtiOn 10 thin very P!OOCSS. N96

nO~T 'the c;Q~h.ring of Doing ,into it. orte:1nal togethorness -

J ill oquivalently tho opening or aokin6 I:te.nlfent. of' ao1ne;. '!'hUG

teB!ln is A.coolated w1tnth. prooess ot al~\ho1~, unconcealment.

Le~in achieveB this relationship to ~'king ~nire.t on the ~ole

of tho relation or lorP.O to phy,9ie. Th. very eeceno. ot man 10

logoe,. bthe happening of' that etrange.t belnp; of' illl, in whol:l

throu(';h violono~, throu~ acta of' power, the ovorpowcrinr; 1s made

- ~

manlfe8t and mi\de to otQl'ld .. ,,97 nut when mtln departs, stAnde out,

into aeing, ho finds hi~dolr in lanSH!&e. Henoe tho oonneotion I

of lores t11 th discouroe.. 'he reason that the origin ot, language

rem&inQ in essence mysterious tD that U1an8Ullge olin only have arisen

from the overpowering. the strango and terrible, through man's

. departure into Being, .. >6 through the discloSfll"e of boln~o.

The word, the name, roo*oreo the emereing beln~ frbo the immediate, overpowering surge to it$ aeing and caintaln8 it in this opfrlneGo .. ,delimltatlon, end pe~ence. rrao1ng doeo not oome afterward, providing fin alroady manifeGt being with n dosi~Qtlon and Q/hQll~rk known as a word; it is the other way around. originally an aot of ~iolence that diselooee Deing, tho .Tord sinka frO%}' 'this height to beoomo a moro 91(9'1, and this al~ proceeds to thrust itoelf ~e#ore the beine. PridtinG apeeoh opens up tho Being of' beln~f) in the structure 'or its ool1eotodneacll And this opening is oolleoted 1n 9. eeoond oeno&. the word ptesorvea that was ori~nally oollooted and so administers "the overpowering pow~r. Standing and active 1~,oi!geJ which is lngatherinz. me.n io the go.therQr. rte under. takea to govern and88uccflOdo in BOveming the power of the

, overpoworing. 99 '

nut lnneuaea cnn be ~180 14le .alk, concealment, rather

tha~ 0. gathering into Iftruotupe and order. Thus the \!C!ln 1s a

nco?_ LanguaeG coosa to its truth only when directed towArd

1~J501), collectednoss, and d1rec~od tlriy from hoarsay, mouthinS!.

and glibneso. Thun the third at~tement aims at &8sertine the 10e08

0.0 a otrueglo. the otru~gle aeainat tlppOlu'anoe and into the

legein and aqein of the Oeing of' beings, s.~Q.rAt1ne (c.o.heidon)

$nd de-cidon

. . be a ~nn ~enn9 to ·tak~ ~ther1ng ~aon o"oself. to undertake Q gather-

ing o.r;lprohcn·s!on of' tho Be-ing. or heines, tho sapient inoorporation

, of' appeQrlng in the work, and so $0 AdMinister (verwql ten) Wlcon-. ·100

oealment. to £re!Jorve, it agninBt olonldng end oanOoo.ltnO~t. If

In this wn~r. "the qu~etion of Bo1nfJ necessarily embraces the

foundlJltions or Th~r~being.ft101 TilerG-beine: os le~ln And !1..2!.!!!

ocours for the oake of' .Baine.

Th1B, dioclosuro by the early Groeks of' tho e;ssenoo 'Of

bclng-hl~n decenor~ted ln~ the definition of man as the ~tlo~al

Il."lical, ~ l~Mn, eohoV thie 10 qultea shift from thO. charac-

terization of phyois ne iop:osD.nthro2on echq~' i.e •• being, \

ov.rpot1~ring appearanoe, neoose! te.~ing the gathering which por-102 vades and Groun~s beinr.-h~sn. Acoording to the lat~r defi-

nition, the lonoa is liellternal1~ed into (1 f&:culty or undor9tondi~e

and. roason.n10

'

,In contrast to the domi.nation of' &in~, the 1n1 tilll -

sepll.rQUon betye~nloma' A.nd 2Nl!~O 1~d to thG domination of

loeeo a~ r~80n over Being_. This .operation 11 al&othe ooparation

of' !.le1ne and think1ng, s. separation whioh hns oh .. ~oter1~d the

wholo of liestern thlnldng from Plato ~, th~ present day. This . d8V~lopncnt 1s not iom~d1atoly ~rmano to the topio of this

PQPor, we will consider it ourfic~ent to' say that it 1~ thie \

-devolopment- which 1s responsible tor truth ac unoonoee1ment

b*1ng tranoromed into truth flS the ¢orrectne •• of apprehension--

Ag representation wh1eh l"teldeu.,r 'oharacterizod in "'~f '8 the -oonv$ntion.al (:ono6pt,~Qn of truth. 104 and that !~z.o.o as statoment

ha. become tho abode or truth- in the sense or oorreetnoS9. 105 -

It ••• The orlan.' d$.aelolJUre 01.' the Being 'Or bein~1J oe8ued, end hencetortb the truo, now interpreted an the correot, ~erely spread

by WAy of d190uDoion, t.aohing, and rules, beooming steadily

broader and flattor. For the benefit of this proceos tho loee~

(ao otatetlOnt) had to be faQhloned into e. tool. Logic was about 1~ .

to be born. H Finally, porhapo the following ytQte~ent casts

SOt:O further 1t r,ht on t~o kinds or hist,orical occurrence whloh lead

Hctdewr to, oharnctor1Z& the queotion of Being ~d the de'Oi010n

in itsrccerd flD the very eosenoo Qf h113~rye ftfldea' ~d

'cateeoryl boeoel) tho tWQ terms thnt dominate \'loatorn thought,~

.- . ~107 fJ.otion, e.nd evtllua.t1on, indeed 0.11 h'ootern Thore-being. .

'l'h" bre!1kdown of truth ..... o-unconoealment is not due. to

0. de f1nlency'on the part of mBn(l ~theX', beoBu,o it wac the

bozinning, it ~ to break down in the- sense 041eevinr; ltrKtlf'

behind. Hore .10 find Grt enrt!r.1&ly important oto.t8ment for the

undoratending ot· n~idowr' 8 phllospphy, indeed of his entire·

pro,oadure at;J a ih1nkeJ'l nA Meinning oAn never direotly prGserve !

ito 1\\11 mo~~ntumJ the only pOGs1ble way to preserve it. for~e' 1s

. to repeat, to drnw onoe a~1n more deoply thnn evor from ito

oourco. ,And it io only by thoughtful r.trievlng that we can

doal appropriately ~1th tho beg1nnine and the brenkdOlfn of its truth.-103

I

r.o ~erely historical invostigatlon wilt r~eal to u~ the need

of: Baing fot .1ts 'l'hel'liJ which we1,nd It.1d betore tAli in Heraolitus

and P&roenlden.

mrt3 of' oelf 1flauthonticl ty e.g 4 historioally glE1l~.fiot.\nt decioion

taken in r~gard to th,t)c queotion ,or Being •

• • • in this prooeao of assuminG the oel£', th~ te~u~ of Thera-being to ito own origin playaea oentral rolo. Thi6 is e~etly what, in moant by the pf"OOe88 of retrieve. liTo nab how About Sainz?, th1n means nothing lesa than to ro-trlevc th~ otiein of' our h1storieal-apir1 tual 'there-heine; in ol'der to trano:f'om it into another origin. JJ •• II _ Thin io, lnde6d, possible, not insofar tUt we simply re-lterate, what \fTO know already about Being, but tf 41 ~ .' Inao:f'ar no tho origin , orij!inatee a~l over agoJ.!'1 z:ag"t9, g,~li!ns.lly (than bofore)j and .. indeed, ~lth all the bowl1dor.ment; Oboourltn end insocurity that eenu1no origination comporto. • • • 81 9

thUD,

•• , every 1nterpl'etation. whether of .. phlloGophpr. n poet, 01' ev~n ¢f a word, must do violonoo to the orleinal. It muot throw Hebt on what is itno longer- present in words' an~ yet Q~kow or othor uttctod. Thic io simply to repest in different oanton what, WAS said about 'l'her ... b.!lng 1tnoIt, it does violence to tho Overpowerine nnd £01'009 it into opon-nees, 00 that what lfliS une~p~9.~d, or even un-thQu$ht, in the ihit1nl text (~~g thorofore did not appear) 10 brought to light by rotrieve.

CHAPTER T.~O

"LETTER ON HUMANISM"

'me "Lettor on flurnaninm" (!!!!) 111 considers explIcItly

and in detail the relation between Beine and the esoence of mGn;

tho relation 'ie considered primarily 1n terms of thou~ht, Aeoon-

darily (in a senne) 1n terme of language. ~Bwas written in

roop01!SO to three que9tiona directed to Heidep;ger by Jean Beauf'retl

- COr."'~cnt redonner ~ !!!!!. ~ !!2l I humaniome I 1 Oomment precioer

~ rapport ~ llontolo~ie ~ ~ ethiquo g08sible? and Comment

BouveT l"element d'aventure -gue compo~te toute 'recherohe .!!!!!. faire

~ ~ philosophic ~ aiople aventuri.re? ~eideeger re.ponds 1n

detail only to the first question, but this responso thrown some

11eht on what he would say conoernin~ the othor two.

Defore even men,tionin8 Beaufret's fint queAtion, Hcidor.ger

indicates'tho eeneral direotion whioh his roeponee will take. The

f'irflt pl.Tagraph of HB begins with a discussion or Rction (n8n~eln.-), - . beoause he want~ to take up thought as an action. Action is not

oSAontlally the bringing about of an effeot, but rather tho

unfolding of somcthing into the fullneos of. its onaenoe, ushering

112 1 t forward- into fullness, bringing to fulfUlman-t.. Thoup:ht

'io an action which brin!!, to fulfillment the rela.t1onship be1lleen

BeinB nnd tl?:e eoeence of man. Hoidep:~r 10 insistent that thou~ht

does not make or produce thil relaUonship but rather affore it

113 to Being as that which ha's been delivered to itself by Being.

36

37

The rolation.hip betwoen Being and the essonce of man has firnt .

of ftll been opened up for the es.ono. of ~n, for thoueht, by

Being and i,. now returned by thought to Being.

The return is made in an ofrering whioh conBists in the

taking up of Being into language. Thought takes Beinl': up 1n lan~age.

Language, then, 1_ the way 1n which thought br1nr,s to fUlfillcent '

the relation between Being and the eSAence of man. 114 "Lnneun~ot"

H~idegger aayn, "is the house of Beine_ In its home r.!nn'dwells. ,

~oever tp1nks or oreate. in words i8 a guardian of thi9 dwelling.

Aa guardian he brings to fulfillment the unhiddennenl of Bcing

insofar as, by his spe.king,- he takos up this unhiddonnesl in

lantruage and preserve. it in lnnguage." 115 Impl1ci tly it ooenm

.to be affirmed that tho unhiddennees of Being!! the relation of

Being to the e8.enee of man. Being is related to the OBsence ~f

men preqisely a8 sletheia, as unconcee.lment, as unhiddennege, and

it i" thi_ whleh languare takoeup nnd proserves. By thio .ooump- .

tion of the unhiddenneaa of Beinf',' 1n language, this unhiddonness

is brought to fulfillment, this relation of 8eln~ to tm eeaence

116 of ~an i8 ushered into its fullneGs.

Thought, lleidegger says, "lets i tAelt" be cAlled into

oervice by Being in order to speak the truth of Being. It ia

thought whi~h accampl10heB thiB lettint:-be. Thought is ltonreMeent

. Ear PEtre pour llEtre. fi117 Thought 18 not-morely ltenp.1l~ent

dane I'aotion for and by beings in the sense of the aotual and -preaont situation; thour,ht is rather l'en~Vaement by end for the,

118 truth of Beine •.

The hletory of thoUeht 10 never a past thing. Rather it

is olways imminent, beoauoe the history of Beine BUltaina and

119 doterClines overy human condition and a1 tuatlon. Thus Heidegeer

immediately brlngo in this 1noreaein~ly important notion of the

history of nein~. Thought hag a ~lQtory because Bein~ has a history.

The history of thou~ht 8eems to be correlative with tho history of

Oe1n[,:. Thought 10 engaged !!l thin hlstol)'of Deing, enp;aged !?z

Being, cnr;aged for the sake of Being. Being 10 referred toaa the -..-.-,--ele~cnt of thought, which has been abandoned in the teohnioal

interpretation of thought, attributed to phllolpphy be~nnlng

with Plato and ~ristotle. Thought is valued by suoh an interpre-

tation only B. teohne, -reflection in the service of doinc and

malting, ,.120 i. e., ref"lection a8 l' engagement "!!.!:!!. I' Botion for ond by beinga. Now he wanta to bring thought back to ita element,

back to Being.

Heidegger questions the neoecoity, implied in Beaufret's

first question, of retaining the word "humanism,," not bcoaUM 1 t

is fluspect in itself, but because it 18 historiolillly oonneoted

with ~he 8a~e withdrawal of thought trom the Beinr,-preoeas a8

·ouch terms ae llo~io,~ !.thics,· end ·physic •• - For thlnkln~ to.

wlthdra~ from its element is for thinking. to oease, for "the 121

clement is that by meG.ns of which thinking can be thinking. II

Tab r.lat1c~ between aeing And thought in epec1fied at this point

,

in a very exaot manner. . ' Being is the potency (Vermogen) for thought in that. Being is concC)rn~d with thour.;ht and brings thou~ht

into its essence, so that thought is precisely thought of Reing. 122

That i8 to flDy, thought h "e-vented" (ereignet) by Being and

is thus of D~ing in the -&nd though~ io 2!,Bein~

oenne of,belong1ng (reh~r') to Bein~;

booaue~1t listens to and heeds ~'IJ~~ , . Boing. To 811y th8:,t thought 1s, 1s to elly that Being is oonoerned about

1 t.5 own eooence.

Being 10 said to be 80 oonoerned gooohicklich, whioh the

tranelo.tors Tendt'trz "In the manner of deatipy.,,123 riow Gt:lschiok'

was firatl used in 8 precise Ilnd wignif1cent sense by Hoideg~r in " 124 .

the eosay "NietzAoheA ~ort IGott 1st tot.'· Riohardson trans-

latee 1t a8 "mittonce.· As lnterpr~ted by Richardson, Heidegger's

new use of thin word adde an importan~ pr~c181on with rc~rd to

the primaoy of Deing. For our purposes. its "roatest significance

would Roem to lie in the preoision given to the Bonee of the

seoond otatement of Heidogger with whioh we began this paper, i.e.

the senoe in whioh the question of the ealence of man in relation

,to Beine is- essenti8.11y an hieto,rlcal queetion, in r-ct tha.t the

decision taken in regard ·to this queotion is the very OS8onoe of

history. For Riohardson. "mittenceH is taken to mean tho event

(Ereie;niB) Min whioh Beine is dil9olooed, when this event io con-

oeived Qg prooeeding from the initiative of/Being. H125 The I

character of this event is such that Being bestows itself, diaoloses it-

Gelf, .~d simultaneously always conoel's itself; its unconcealmont

10 _lwaye "ne~tive., A -,finite, by rea non ot: the very way in which

it bestows 1tself. The negativity of the disclosure of Being-in-

mittenoe, along with the conooalment of thin negativity, oon8t!-

tutes what ~ reforred to 8S "my.tery." MetaphYBlo8 itself, of

whioh Nictzschc'~ nihilism 1& the culmination,i. peoo.ede from

the event o~ Boing-as-mittence. In metaphysics the Being-question

is not posed, precisely, beoauee metaphysico !! the 'withheld mystery

of Being. l~ me~phy8108, 'Being e-mitB itslelf to man 1n ouch a

way that m.n tries to oomprehend beines!! beings. "126

1~e word Goochick is etymg6o~ically aasociated with

schicken ("to send Ii ), leaohichte ("history") end geachehen (lito

oome-to-pas8," Hto happen.") Being-aG-hi~tory consists of the

colleotivity of mitten~ee (Be-8h1ck-e, Oeschiohte).1 27 The

thinking of Being involves, in fact 10, the thinking of Being-. -

&a-hiatory, ot: Belng-s8-mlttence. Heldegeer'A notion of hermeneu-

tics i8 profoundly arfect.d by this pr~aion. Other thinkers are

medi~ted after the manner ot: re.trieve, which attempt a to think.

through what the original author did not and' could not say because

or the rinite mittence ot: Being to him. In ite approach to beings.

thQught ·w111 try to reoeive the earth a8 a bleBoin~ bootowed

upon it and make itself at home on ear.th according to th,e cxl~n-, . oiea of ,thi9 aooeptanc~, so. in such a way that it atands guard

ovor tho my.~ry of Beinge K128 Riohardson oeee 1n thig all the

esoentials of the fOlmlula of' ill! which we will eee shortlYI "l~an

no ohepherdof Being.- r.e mieht add thnt we have here also 8

prelude of the "thought-as-thanking- of~. ,

-The event of' heing-ae-mittenoe i. nothinr; other than the

iOBulnp, forth of the ontological differenoe of Being and bein~8.

Kanta comportment-with beings 10 grounded in this difference, in 12 '

man6s relatedness to Going. 9 Being always comes-to-~resence in

being. in a finite wny. Thie menno thatBein~ itself 1 ... Itlayo

self-conoealing, preoisely becau.e it doee not loee its~ in beings , ~~m£\i.f\

but, 1n order to realn ito~lf, withdraws from them a. it gives rise

to them. The !lnltude of' man's comprehension of Being 19 rooted

in the finitude of the Being-proce •• itself.

This brief aside permits UIJ to se. that the phrase that

fieing 10 concerned about its own essenoe F.eachioKl1ch cannot simply

be rendered. itBeing hao alwaya. in the I':anner of de"tiny, concerned

itself about ito a.aenoe. it The "odd 8!aohic~lo~ brings to our

attention the diaou801on, now .. r~l.r feature in lIeldeeger' e

writings, of Beinr,-a~-mlttence; Belne-ae-hi.tory •. The further

GenIe of thitJ, in the context of' ·HB; will be aeen ehartly. For· -_ the moment.. we ean simply indicate that. to Slay that thour;ht !!"

1s to say that Being e1vca itself a8 Be1ng-&o-mlttence and that

Being somehow stands in need of thou~ht in o~der to ,do 80. This

8ee~n to be the meaning of the German eentenoCI 'Das.Oenken 1st--

dieD SAgt I do.. Sein ha.t sieh jo gesoh1cklich seinee 'teDens angenommen. ,,1,0

42

Thi. ooncern is • "likingH (mogon). Potency (Vermogcn)

-not only oan perform this or that, but • • • oan let eome~hing

bo'what it is as it sterna from ita true origin. ,,1,1 It i.~thlS sonse of ·ooncernfUl potency" that Being io tho potency for" eivec riso to, thought. ThuG," ••• Being io capable of thought. ft1 ,2

Ao such oapability, Being "coJlUDllnds thoue;ht and thus aloothe

ossenco of man, whioh meano in turh hiG relationship to Being,A

i.e., Deing suetains thou~ht in its eleoont and thuo preservos it

'in it. oSBence. 1" Only such a, eo~and keeps thought from bein,. ..

technique and languD.ee from .raUlng under the public lteotabl1shment

and authori7.etion of'the overtness of the ed.tent 1n the absolute

'11154 .' objectivization of everYthing. Languftee io not a tool for

arranging lines of communication nor an instrument of' domination , .

over beines but "the house of the truth of Being" whOle task it

10 to take up Being ~nd thus complete (fulfill) the relation of

Being to the essence of man by restorlne the nearneoo of Bcing to man.

The Ooncern (Sorge) for rentoring to man the dwellinz of

'the truth of Being and thu~ of re.toring man to his esnence iB

nothing other then the concern for rendernlnr, man human. The

quostion of the huoani tIls of' man. of whence and how the esaenoe

of man 18 dete~ined, has been problematic in the course of history.

lbe Roman, r~rxi9t, Sartrean, and Ch~i8tiQn versions of humanism

all"coinolde in that the humanitas of the homo humanus is deter-

mined from tho view of an ~lreQdy~e8tQbli.hod interpretation of

nature, of history, of Norld. of the basi. of the world •••• f i.e.

of being. in their totality.H 155 That is to Ray, " .... every

hucanism is .ither founded in'a metaphysics '01' 18 converted into

the basia for a metaphY'iCB~·136 As m~taphYllc.l, these determlna.

tiona of man'., e.sence presuppose an inte~pretatlon of beingl but

do not raise the question of the truth of Being. H~aniDm has

nothing in_comeon with the queRtion of the relRtion of Being to

the aBlenoe of man.

The metA,phye1onl eharacter of hUIIsnloms iF! t!lhown in that

they all presupp088 a. lolf-evident tho oharaoter of the e~8ence

of man revealed in the phraAe animal rationale. Such B definition

of the euenoe of l!18\\,as metaphyAioal, doeR not ~ai.e the quoGUon

of how the eseence of man belongs to the truth of Being. Every

interpretation o,f reason and 'Hfe reats on a. ~r1or inte~reta.tion,

whioh RlwaYD remains unquestioned, of beings 1n their Being.

Finally, Heider-eel' objects to oharaoteri-v.ing the elDence of 6an

in termo of 8ni~alita~. n ••• By 'this the essenoe of man i. too

lightly/oonaldered and is not thought of in the light of ita

louroe, that enBential source which alway. remains tor hiAtorical

humanity the eo.ential future, r~etQ.phys1cs t.hinka of mO,n aD &risinZ ',' 137

from anlmalita~ and_rioco not think of him &9 pointing toward hurnanitRa.-

The-essential origin, out of whioh man comc9-to-peC8 in

hili! esaence,is Being itself', by whioh man 1, olaimed, l.1hen he

heed. this claim he hac f'ound the dwelling-place of hi. sooenoe

and fthas- language a. the home in which he dwells in the truth of'

Being.' He heeds thi. ol .. imby "stand1ng in the clearing of Being.

through Elc ... sistenz, which fa "that, wherein the euenoe of man I

pl"eoerves the- .,cu rce that de'termines him,''' i •. e., Being itsolf. 1~

. Of all bein~ •• only man haa been admitted lnto the mittence

(Geachick) of Ek-oiotenz. which thus uniquely characterizes the !

eocenee of man, in Buoh a way that .. • • • all that we attribute

to man lila Dnimi11itlls 1n comparing him to the. 'anirn.al' is eroun'ded

'1n the essence of Ek_s1stenz. 1'9' The mltteno& of Ek-nlaten~ 1s 8

mittence to think the essence of his Belng. 140

141 For l!eidegger the eAeelnOe of! man l1eo precisely in Ek-dgtenz. , The quegticn is ol ... rly not one of determining the re1etionship of

existent1D as actuality to eoaentia ae potentiality or po,tibillty. ,

tb4t Heidegger rather mean a by this statement and what he moant by

the .~ statement, It.!!!. '~"'oeen' !!.!. Dagein. Her;t !!l seiner !E-stenz, II

18 that ~ ••• man is essentially such that he-is the eThere', that 1'42

is the light1ne-up of Beine." Ek-slotent Dasein stand. outside

'itself within the truth o~ Being. It 1. becaune this i8 10 that

~an Whau" langusge. not vice versa, man "hasft language because he

I'haa" a world. Langunge is -the l1ehting ... nd .. conceau.n~ advent .. -

. 1 J~, of D~ing 1tnelf.~

. tie1dee,ger further diaU.ngulehef' his phraoe, tlTh8 'OAsertoe'

of DaBein lies in ito Rk-eietenz' in the statement, 'The phrase,

',JtQn ek-e1sts,' d~e8 not answer the question of' whether there

are actually men or not; it answbrs the question of' the 'outmoe' of

man. M144 Tho question of_the e.oonoe of man should not be posed

1n ~crmo of who or what man Is. For both the personal and the

objective miss and obstruct lIall that :h essentIally FJc-Aiatenz 1n

it$ historical 8e1ng.·145 8eln8~e.chichtlich Ekniatenzs to Dpeoify

the meaning of" this phrase would give ue8eeoentially the dotermination. ,

in terms of !!.!!. of the three .tatemento ·of' Ei' wi th which we bees.n

this paper. It i. rensonable to a.aume that the meaning ·of this

phral]o 1; oon.tG.ined in Uie following .entenceol -As ok-siot'ng

man endures (Qteht • • • aus) Da-sein, in thG.t ho takea the There

Ilg the l1~htine-up ot Being into 'care.' But Da-.ein itself fa as

It come •• to-pa.s 1n the e8a. (Wurf) of , -

Being-as-the-emitting-mittenoe (~Sein~!l!!!! achiokend ~.ch1ct~

) ,,1J}6 . 1'\_ " ,

liohen • The casting of Hese1n 18 the Gelf-emitting of Being.

~:an 1D CQIlE ~ Being ~ the truth (unconcealtilent) of Being. As

ok-Biatant. he is to guard the t1l1lth of Deing, .n~ in the l1eht

of' 'Doing allow beings to appear a. own •. t they are. 147 xTl}at be1;!gs

appear and how they appear are determined. not by man, but by the - 148 . mlttenoe of Beine_ ~~n ~B to find the ·coe-mitment· (Sohlokl1ohe)

which COJ'freilponda to this m.ttence (Oe.chick), the co:nQmltment

of shepherding the truth of Being. '14

flUan is' the 'shepherd of Being." 9

~et.phy81c.l thought for Heldegger is not concerned with

the truth of' Being, b·ut. even in it. critical representatives (ft.g.,

Desoartes and Kant) it -thinks from beines to beings with a glance

in paa8ing at Bei"!._150 Th~ llghtln~up (Llchtun~) of Being is ,

not known in term" of the ~_uth or Being itself. 'The truth .of

Being!!. the u'ghtin8-.uP, the lighting-prooess, the lie;htine;-poooes"

·48

151 !! Being._ In this Renee, then, the oaeting of Da-aein 18 equi-

vnlently the self-emitting of aeing. Itoelf, whioh in metaphyeic~

remaine conoealed.

That the casting of OP.-se~n !! the self-emitting of Being -

is sean in Heldegger t s turther an4 ·~re str&ightforward- ola1m

that a~ing itself·io the rel~tlonehip between Being and ek-siatent

])e.-.oin. Being and DR-seln are·not' two things which require a bond . .. betw06n them. P.Qtber, Being!! tho ~nd, insofor as Be1nB -holds

fas~ !:k...-sistenz 1n itself and gathers t-t together unto i tAolt' in

ita existential, i.o. ok-statio essence Q8 tho place or tho truth 152 ' .

of Oeing Qmid baings.- Bein8 .-mite itself (slch Gelbat .chiokt) ........... , as this relationship; man ,0 ek-siotine; oomes to .~and in this relationship~ ecstatlcolly 4ndutoG (aua8teht) thiR rolation.hip, -by taking it ,up (Ubernlmmt) in oonce~J but preoisely insofar 8S

he dOOR this he fails at rlrst to reoo~lze what 10 closoat (B.in~)

and hold~ him.olr ~st to the n~xt olooeat Rbeinge), taking theae aa the olo.est. rhe relationahlp ot the e.oenco of ~an to the

truth of Oeinr, oannot derive trom rk~nlDtenz 01noo the coming-to-

paso ot Ek-~i9t.n2.itGolf derive. from the oom1n~-to-paoa of· 15}

th4 truth of n~ing.

The priority of Se1nft 1. t.hud' preoi.ed explio1 tly in a

wo.y which remained, at boat only hinted at in !:2 lind.!?!. Thi, 154

priority ie roferred to "9 an "unobtruoive holding-hay."

And, 80w8what oorpr:l.lline1y. the mysteriouB oloDenel!J~ 01' acing 10

-identified \'1J.t.h liln·:!JO.... ·Tltle closeness oomes-to ... paSD I.S lan-

.155· . . ' .-guago itoelf." Of oourse, languar;e here it] not the mataphysical-

anlm4l interpretation ot lanr,uaee aa "the unity of sound-fO~ (script), . ~156.. '

melody and ~hrn and me&nln& mbut language as 8e~n from th~

point of view' of its oomine-to-pl.98 wit~ln Beine-a~-h1gtOry.15~ aocording to which language is the houso ot B~ing. -th~ very 001"1".'-

158 pondenoe of ban' .. ouenee to Beine.

In ~ H~1deeeer stateD, -intentionally and cautiously," "Baing

if! given, It !ED gibt ~I.e S.1n. It In J!!. the !!.d~ ~ io said to

be ~ing itself and ~he essence of aeing to l1e in the giv1ne, in

the iopartinc of its ,truth. "The giving-itself into the Op~n with

thl0 Delf i; Be~ne itself." 159 Heldeggor u.eo "Hs glbt it 1n order

to avoid oaying -Being i8, ft Ii~ S~\n lB,-b." for he does not want .0

contuae aeing with bein~9. It is tru~, however, that Parm*nideo

had .aid; 'Being 10," esti~ 8!r Ginai. and M in this uttera&ee , - 160

tbe original mystery of all thought i8 oonooa16d." Parmenid~et

utt.eranoe rerco.ins unthoue;ht in the history of philoaophy. Ilo1de.cr;ger

Q.ttornpto to r,iva 1 t thought by Gaying !!. Cibt, an e~r~nsion. intonded

to convey the mittent chnra.cter /(o.o,oh1c~) of ~e1ne. 161 The history

(OeGchichte) of Beine alwaYD oom~a to expr~sgion in the wordA. of I .

the .aGential thinketeJ in their wor~1I the self-giving, tho nelf-

emitting ot Being 18 oxpreaoed. 'l'h. 'ossential thinkers are those

\1ho. by enduring ek-eistent There-bo1ng, atand guo.rd ave!' the tlolf'-(

OClitUng truth of' Being. A, thinker lil(e Ilo1der,ger, therofore, who

wanta to think tho truth of' Being ttI\lgt think historically (s,esohlahtllch).

lIeldegger 1s not talking !tere of a hi.tory (Hll1torlt) of' past

opinions •• l11uGtratlv, of a syotematio o~d1.1eetlcal thought,

.but rether of the hi.tory' (Oesehlohte) of Being Uss.1f, of: whioh , "

. . thought 18 the rocembrance (Andenken) brought-to-p.se (ereimnet)

1~ .' by n.lng ltself'. "The ocourrence (GeDehehen) of history (Ge_ehiehte)

oomes-to-paes &8 the o1tt~noe (~~chio~) of the truth of Being end

out of' this CI.ttenoe.,,16; Being come, to mitteneo insof'Qr .e it

g1ves itoel!'.

A. mittence, Being both gives itself,and refuses or with-

holds (verQap;t> itself at the "att)o time. 111& vak"~oue examples of

Boilly-'s coming-to-expresQlon, e.g., Hegel" absolute metaphysios.

I"Q.rx· _ dialectical ~ter1 .. lism. G.nd Nietzsohe'., final expression

of motephydc9, bclon~ to the mltteneel, to the hlatory (Gesehiohto)

of the truth of Beingi 11)oy are not to be refuto

51

164 (G!scp1ohtlich). ThouCht of' the tr~th of Being demand. thought

or tho Ek-sic~en~ of Da~8ein and thua of ita historicity (~~Ach1oht-165 .. .

}}chkelt). '.Jhen it is sald in ~ that ·only as long ae Dasoin

le,. 1e there 'Being," th10 does not mean thAt Daaeln oreates Boing,

but rather that only insofar ·as Being liOlts i taolf up for man in

the ecstet;i.o projection of' Ik-st.tent ta:-aei'1. docs Being come-to ...

I pass for !tan. The pro jection is .. being-cant by Being i tB~l1·. which , 166

emits man into the Ek .. siotonz of' Da-ooln ao hin eSQenoe. Th10 c .. ,

mittence ~ the lighting-up of B~ing and grants t~ man tho nearness

of Being; 1n which the ek-oiotont The~e dwello, tho'noarneso which

!l the There (~) of . There-be1na (Dt-sein).

This 01000n098 of Beine in the Thore of There-being in man's

homeland. The hlDtory ot Being reveal. an oblivion ofnein~ in

'which the hOI:elnasneS!s of modem Drul 'i' rooted. lIomeleoeneflsia fil

gif.1\ of the 'came forgetfulness of Being whioh 18 evidenoed 8100 1n I -: ,

the fact th~t man considern only beines. "Boine aG tho oiteenoe 167 '

w~h e-m1t& 'eG~; remains concealed." rlomele~uneaG, as a

\1orld -fat.' (~chioksal), 1s. a=1ttenoe (Ge8ohiok)dwhloh must be ..... . underotood from theh~ QtOI'y of ne1ng (oeinsgoGoh1chtlich). '!he

t\lienat1on whioh rarx has d.iseovered is an esaential dimension of'

this history of Being. Only a thouzht whioh reoognizes the essen-

tio.lly historical oharaoter of DfII1ng oan proflt8bly d1ccusa with

}.)lrx1sm, for r.:ar~' a alienation rellches bllok into t-ho bomeleoen&D8

of'· modern man, which itoelf reoult. f'r0Cl the f'orgetfulneo,1!t of Being.

1,!o,rx' 0 mator1oiism, in ~hich "everybelng appeora &. the matorial 168 ' .

of labor~ oontains concealed within itself th~ 8e£enoe of teeh.

nioity, whioh lB ~a mittenae, in the hlQtoryof neing, of tho truth

of-Doing reponing In forgettulneoliJ." 169 In cO!:llI!bnlcm (an elCl2:ento.ry

experienoe of what 10 world-historianl (weltge.ohl~htlioh) hat been

uncovored. Motnphyoioa oonn~t Q'O't)rtt.ke (o,ln-holell) this c1ttence . 170

and ,ather toeether what now 1s.. 'rhe 'futuro x:dttehae of: 1!:8Jl

.how~ 1taelf t~ the thou~ht whioh thinks the history of Be~ng in

terms of man'g cetting out on the way toward the diocovery of the , t~)th of Being., ~iQ will not be acooopl1shed by any n~tlon.licm 01'

. ,

!nt.ernaU,onalicm. nor by any indivldual1f3tl '01' oolleotivim.

Coliaet1v~sm 1, the nbGolute oolf~.Gertion of manto eubjeotiv1ty,

of .n e.., animal rnt1on~le. thruat out fi"om the truth of' lleing

and running around 1n a circle. ~o!an! s osstmee liol in hi. being

more than animal r.tl~le, '.e.,-a:or. original and, therefore. 171

in essence more essential .. (f tan 10 in thrown-noaa. a. the

-ek-slating courtter-throw of Soing,·17;2 he 1s not the magter. but (

tho ohephord of Doing. The dimn1t~ot man ·reste in the fact that . 17,

he t-18.S oalled by ~1ne into the tl'ueneSG of 1 ts truth." . '!he

casting or DR-se1n. which is tho self-em1tt6nce of Beine, io ~l.o • -1 t

tho "eall-' of Deing to' na-.~ln, in which call the relation between

Oeln& Qnd the&9SenCe (comln~-to-pre.enoe) ot man resides." The 174

oa,ll 10 the throw. In ahort, ~ 1s in his ooming-to-praaenee

lnthe hi.tory of no1n~ thQt being who •• Being as Ek-el.tenz. con.iato

-1n thie, that he dwclh 1n the n6ameSB of Being. 1J.an 19 the . 175 neighbor of' Being. It The cs •• noe o.f' man is in itft nWll way a

r!!1ttenoe, the 01 ttenoe of Eko-Eli.ten~" whioh -derives fronl Be1nt'j

itself. inROfar as Being brings can to p