Saturday, May 19, 2012
[Start][Previously on]

Frédéric de Towarnicki's Visite à Martin Heidegger

When he had written it in 1927, Being and Time was born “a test, that of the fundamental experience of forgetting being”. More than ever this oversight marked our civilization. Characterized by the language of science and technology, it had extended to the humanities and the field of art. Man forgets the dimension of being, he forgets that it is in being, in its clearing, that its existence becomes possible. It is in this clearing that man stands and it is in this Lichtung that speech comes to him.
The question of the sense of being, asked by continuing to ask the ancient question of being, refers to a thought other than that of metaphysics, more original than that. Sein und Zeit was not a new thesis on being, but the unspoken of philosophy, or of metaphysics - the two terms being identical. Being and Time was presented as “the preparation for the task of thinking. Still reserved in the history of philosophy and to which neither philosophy nor metaphysics, and science even less, can have access to”. The issue did not lead to a simple “movement of boundaries” within a domain already cleared but led thinking to a “leap” in a place where, he had to admit, science could not enter . Heidegger wrote in Introduction to Metaphysics: “Being and Time refers not to a book, but to what is proposed as a task. Understand by this, that we do not know, and if we authentically know it, we will never know it except as a way of questioning.” Science, in its way, follows a different path.

During our interview Heidegger came back for a moment to the phrase that had caused a scandal: “that science does not think. " As he had said again and again, we should not hear it in a derogatory way, as a reproach or condemnation of a deficiency: science simply cannot turn to think like the thinkers, it could not just because of its methods; it is precisely these that allow it to move forward and that ensure its path. Assuming that philosophy is a science could only be a source of errors. Philosophy considers a being in its context, while the sciences (moving within a specific horizon) continue their research in specific domains of the being, making measurements in a world. The question of the essence of human freedom, for example, could not be “scientific”. Given such a fundamental issue, we were in a place that no science, not today, not tomorrow, not ever, was able, as a science, to occupy or control.
To be continued. . . .


Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home
For when Ereignis is not sufficient.

Appropriation appropriates! Send your appropriations to enowning at gmail.com.

View mobile version