I regard any statement about the "failure" of B&T with great
suspicion. There seem to be a lot of people who claim that B&T is simply
*irrelevant* to any later thinking. Anyone who has read Heidegger's
response to Richardson surely should not make that mistake.
Any "failure" of B&T is one of not being original enough, not a
total failure. A succinct critique of B&T is found in Beitraege zur
Philosophie. Heidegger has just distinguished between the "guiding
question" [Leitfrage] of metaphysics, and his own "basic question"
[Grundfrage] of the meaning of Being (my own rough translation):
"From the guiding question to the basic question there is never a direct
progress that applies the guiding question in the same way once again (to
Being); but rather only a leap, that is the necessity of *another*
beginning. However, we can and must create a *transition* through the
developed overcoming of the posing of the guiding question and its answers
as such, a transition that prepares the other beginning and in general
makes it visible and presumable [ahnbar]. "Being and Time" serves for the
preparation of this transition, that is, it already stands authentically
in the basic question, without developing it purely initially
[anfaenglich] out of itself." (76)
As Heidegger makes clear on pp. 87-88, the position of B&T is
vitiated entirely when one understands it
"existentially-athropologically", that is, if we take "Dasein" as an
idiosyncratic synonym for "man". There is another passage on p. 171 where
Heidegger says that B&T and "What is Metaphsyics?" are already written out
of the *overcoming* of metaphysics.
Unless we are to take these passages as more evidence of
Heidegger's creative re-interpretation of his own path, we have to
recognize that the project of B&T is relevant for Heidegger's later work,
and not just a blunder that he came to regret.
Martin Weatherston,
Philosophy & Religious Studies Dept.,
East Stroudsburg University,
East Stroudsburg, PA 18301.
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
suspicion. There seem to be a lot of people who claim that B&T is simply
*irrelevant* to any later thinking. Anyone who has read Heidegger's
response to Richardson surely should not make that mistake.
Any "failure" of B&T is one of not being original enough, not a
total failure. A succinct critique of B&T is found in Beitraege zur
Philosophie. Heidegger has just distinguished between the "guiding
question" [Leitfrage] of metaphysics, and his own "basic question"
[Grundfrage] of the meaning of Being (my own rough translation):
"From the guiding question to the basic question there is never a direct
progress that applies the guiding question in the same way once again (to
Being); but rather only a leap, that is the necessity of *another*
beginning. However, we can and must create a *transition* through the
developed overcoming of the posing of the guiding question and its answers
as such, a transition that prepares the other beginning and in general
makes it visible and presumable [ahnbar]. "Being and Time" serves for the
preparation of this transition, that is, it already stands authentically
in the basic question, without developing it purely initially
[anfaenglich] out of itself." (76)
As Heidegger makes clear on pp. 87-88, the position of B&T is
vitiated entirely when one understands it
"existentially-athropologically", that is, if we take "Dasein" as an
idiosyncratic synonym for "man". There is another passage on p. 171 where
Heidegger says that B&T and "What is Metaphsyics?" are already written out
of the *overcoming* of metaphysics.
Unless we are to take these passages as more evidence of
Heidegger's creative re-interpretation of his own path, we have to
recognize that the project of B&T is relevant for Heidegger's later work,
and not just a blunder that he came to regret.
Martin Weatherston,
Philosophy & Religious Studies Dept.,
East Stroudsburg University,
East Stroudsburg, PA 18301.
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---