Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Language as Calculus vs. Language as Universal Medium pp 135–228Cite as

Heidegger’s Ontology and Language as the Universal Medium

  • Chapter

  • 210 Accesses

Part of the book series: Synthese Library ((SYLI,volume 207))

Abstract

In this part of my study, I turn to Heidegger’s philosophy.1 I shall try to establish that, except for his very early writings, Heidegger’s ideas on language, truth, semantics, and logic are naturally interpreted as just so many corollaries of his belief in language as the universal medium. The position that Heidegger eventually developed thus shows a marked contrast to Husserl’s and to that of most of contemporary analytical philosophy. As we shall see below, however, even the Heidegger of the later writings does not stand completely isolated among his colleagues of this century. Several tenets of his later thought bear a remarkable resemblance to ideas proposed by Ludwig Wittgenstein. I shall point out some of these parallels, notwithstanding that comparisons between Heidegger and Wittgenstein have already been presented by other interpreters. A new examination of the parallels between Wittgenstein and Heidegger seems to be called for by recent advances in Wittgenstein scholarship. Notably, the book by Merrill B. and Jaakko Hintikka on Wittgenstein’s universal medium conception2 provides a whole variety of new insights that have not yet been exploited in Heidegger research.

Die Phänomenologie, das sind ich und Heidegger, sonst niemand.

E. Husserl in the 1920s

… das tautologische Denken. Das ist der ursprungliche Sinn der Phänomenologie.

M. Heidegger in 1973

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes to Part III

  1. On Heidegger’s life, see Walter Biemel, Heidegger, Rowohlt, Hamburg 1973; and Günter Neske (ed.), Erinnerungen an Martin Heidegger, Neske, Pfullingen, 1972. The standard bibliography is Hans-Martin Sass, Heidegger-Bibliographie Anton Hain, Meisenheim am Glan, 1968. For an overview of Heidegger scholarship, see Winfried Franzen, Martin Heidegger, Metzler, Stuttgart, 1976. On Heidegger’s development see foremost Otto Pöggeler, Martin Heidegger’s Path of Thinking, translated by Daniel Magurshak and Sigmund Barber, Humanities Press International, Atlantic Highlands, N.J., 1987, (the German original appeared in 1963); William J. Richardson, Heidegger. Through Phenomenology to Thought, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1963; and Winfried Franzen, Von der Existenzialon-tologie zur Seinsgeschichte. Eine Untersuchung über die Entwicklung Martin Heideggers, Anton Hain, Meisenheim am Glan, 1975; Thomas Sheehan, ”Heidegger’s Early Years: Fragments for a Philosophical Biography”, in Th. Sheehan (ed.), Heidegger: The Man and the Thinker, Precedent Publishing, Chicago, 1981, pp. 3–19.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hintikka and Hintikka, Investigating Wittgenstein.

    Google Scholar 

  3. In Frühe Schriften, edited by von Friedrich-Wilhelm von Herrmann, Gesamtausgabe Vol. 1, Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, 1978, pp. 189–411, (hereafter Scotus).

    Google Scholar 

  4. ”Das Realitätsproblem in der modernen Philosophie”, in Gesamtausgabe Vol. 1, pp. 1–15, (hereafter Realität)’, English translation by Philip J. Bossert, ”The Problem of Reality in modern Philosophy”, Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology, vol. 4 (1973), pp. 64–71, (hereafter Reality).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Realität, p. 3; Reality, p. 65.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Realität, p. 9; Reality, p. 68.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Realität, pp. 5–9; Reality, pp. 66–67.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Realität, p. 7; Reality, p. 67.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Realität, p. 8; Reality, p. 67.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Realität, pp. 9–10; Reality, p. 67.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Realität, p. 2; Reality, p. 64.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Realität, p. 9; Reality, p. 68.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Realität, p. 9; Reality, p. 68.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Realität, p. 10; Reality, p. 68, with translation changed.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Realität, p. 10; Reality, p. 68, with translation changed.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Realität, p. 15; Reality, p. 70.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Realität, p. 15; Reality, p. 70.

    Google Scholar 

  18. ”Neue Forschungen über Logik”, in Gesamtausgabe Vol. 1, pp. 17–43, (hereafter Forschungen).

    Google Scholar 

  19. ”Die Lehre vom Urteil im Psychologismus. Ein kritisch-positiver Beitrag zur Logik”, in Gesamtausgabe Vol. 1, pp. 59–188, (hereafter Urteil).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Forschungen, p. 19.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Forschungen, p. 20.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Urteil, p. 109.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Urteil, p. 110.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Forschungen, p. 29.

    Google Scholar 

  25. H. Rickert, ”Das Eine, die Einheit und die Eins. Bemerkungen zur Logik des Zahlbegriffs”, Logos, vol. 2 (1911–12), pp. 26–78.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ibid., p. 27.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Forschungen, p. 42.

    Google Scholar 

  28. ”Rezension von Charles Sentroul, Kant und Aristoteles”, in Gesamtausgabe Vol. 1, pp. 49–53, here p. 52.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Urteil, pp. 167–169.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Urteil, p. 172.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Urteil, p. 175.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Urteil, p. 178.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Urteil, p. 176.

    Google Scholar 

  34. See note 3 above.

    Google Scholar 

  35. See Martin Grabmann, ”De Thoma Erfordiensi auctore Grammaticae quae Ioanni Duns Scoto adscribitur Speculativae”, Archivum Franciscanum Historicum, vol. 25 (1922), pp. 273–277.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Martin Köstler, ”Heidegger schreibt an Grabmann”, Philosophisches Jahrbuch, vol. 87 (1980), pp. 96–109, here p. 103.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ibid., p. 104.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Martin Köstler, ”Heidegger schreibt an Grabmann”, Philosophisches Jahrbuch, vol. 87 (1980), pp. 96–109Ibid., p. 107. Two passages from Rickert’s ”Gutachten über die Habilitationsschrift des Herrn Dr. Heidegger, Freiburg i.B. den 19. Juli 1915”, (Philosophische Fakultät der Universität) are also worth quoting: ”The subject-matter has not been treated historically. To do this would have caused great difficulties and would probably still have exceeded the strength of the author.” (p. 1) ”His scientific development is still in its early stages, but he is already capable of understanding quite difficult thoughts from earlier centuries, and he also has enough knowledge of modern philosophy to see connections between the past and the present. Since he also has mathematical training and real talent for abstract thinking, and since he proceeds with industry and carefulness, one may expect delightful results from his later scientific works.” (pp. 3–4)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Scotus, pp. 281–282.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Scotus, p. 274.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Scotus, p. 278.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Scotus, p. 279.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Scotus, p. 293.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Scotus, p. 301.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Scotus, pp. 309–310.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Scotus, p. 321.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Scotus, p. 327.

    Google Scholar 

  49. The criticism came from Karl Vossler, ”Grammatik und Sprachgeschichte oder das Verhältnis von ‘richtig’ und ‘wahr’ in der Sprachwissenschaft”, Logos, vol. 1 (1910), pp. 83–94.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Scotus, p. 339.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Scotus, p. 191.

    Google Scholar 

  52. See Bruno Jordan, ”Rezension von Martin Heideggers Die Kategorien- und Bedeutungslehre des Duns Scotus”, Literarisches Zentralblatt für Deutschland 68, Nr. 35 (1.9.1917), pp. 847–848. For more recent criticism see

    Google Scholar 

  53. Roderick M. Stewart, ‘Signification and Radical Subjectivity in Heidegger’s ”Habilitationsschrift”’, Man and World, vol. 12 (1979), pp. 360–386; and

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Rainer A. Bast, Der Wissenschaftsbegriff Martin Heideggers, Frommann-Holzboog, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstadt, 1986, p. 16.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Scotus, p. 400.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Scotus, p. 401.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Scotus, p. 403.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Scotus, p. 405.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Scotus, p. 406.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Scotus, p. 408.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Scotus, p. 407.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Vorlesungsverzeichnisse der Albert Ludwigs-Universität, Freiburg im Breisgau 1916–1919.

    Google Scholar 

  65. ”Die Idee der Philosophie und das Weltanschauungsproblem”, (hereafter Weltanschauungsproblem), in M. Heidegger, Zur Bestimmung des Menschen, edited by Bernd Heimbüchel, Gesamtausgabe Vol. 56/57, Vit-torio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, 1987, pp. 3–117.

    Google Scholar 

  66. ”Einleitung in die Phänomenologie der Religion”, unpublished. On this lecture-series see Thomas Sheehan, ”Heidegger’s ‘Introduction to the Phenomenology of Religion/ 1920–21”, The Personalist, vol. 60 (1979), pp. 312–324.

    Google Scholar 

  67. ”Augustinus und der Neuplatonismus”, unpublished.

    Google Scholar 

  68. M. Heidegger, Interpretationen zu Aristoteles. Einführung in die phänomenologische Forschung, edited by Walter Bröcker und Käte Brök-ker-Oltmanns, Gesamtausgabe Vol. 61, Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  69. ”Anmerkungen zu Karl Jaspers’ ‘Psychologie der Weltanschauungen’”, in Karl Jaspers in der Diskussion, edited by Hans Saner, Piper, München, 1973, pp. 70–100. This text is interpreted in David Farrell Krell, ”Toward Sein und Zeit. Heidegger’s Early Review (1919–21) of Jasper’s ‘Psychologie der Weltanschauungen’”, Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology, vol. 6 (1975), pp. 147–56.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Sein und Zeit, 15th impression, Niemeyer, Tübingen, 1979, (hereafter SZ); English translation by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson, Being and Time, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1962, (hereafter BT).—For commentaries on this difficult work, see foremost Friedrich-Wilhelm von Herrmann: Hermeneutische Phänomenologie des Daseins. Eine Erläuterung von ”Sein und Zeit”, Band I: Einleitung: Die Exposition der Frage nach dem Sinn von Sein, Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, 1987; and Günter Figal, Martin Heidegger. Phänomenologie der Freiheit, Athenäum, Frankfurt am Main, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  71. ”Vom Wesen der Wahrheit”, in M. Heidegger, Wegmarken, Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, 1967, pp. 73–97. I here follow the received view that recently has been developed in detail in Ekkehard Fräntzki, Die Kehre. Heideggers Schrift ”Vorn Wesen der Wahrheit”, Cantaurus-Verlagsgesellschaft, Pfäffenweiler, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Weltanschauungsproblem, §12.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Weltanschauungsproblem, p. 64, p. 100.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Weltanschauungsproblem, p. 54.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Oskar Becker, ”Von der Hinfälligkeit des Schönen und der Abenteuerlichkeit des Künstlers”, Jahrbuch fur Philosophie und phänomenologische Forschung. Ergänzungsband. Festschrift. Edmund Husserl zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet, Niemeyer, Halle, 1929, pp. 27–52. Among more recent authors, Dagfinn Føllesdal seems to hold a similar position. See his ”Husserl and Heidegger on the Role of Actions in the Constitution of the World”.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Bast, Der Wissenschaftsbegriff Martin Heideggers, p. XIV.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Aristoteles, p. 131.

    Google Scholar 

  78. M. Heidegger, Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Zeitbegriffs, edited by Petra Jaeger, Gesamtausgabe Vol. 20, Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, 1979, (hereafter Zeit). English translation by Theodore Kisiel, History of the Concept of Time, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1985, (hereafter Time).

    Google Scholar 

  79. M. Heidegger, Die Grundprobleme der Phänomenologie, edited by Friedrich-Wilhelm von Herrmann, Gesamtausgabe Vol. 24, Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, 1975, (hereafter Grundprobleme). English translation by Albert Hofstadter, The Basic Problems of Phenomenology, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1982, (hereafter Basic Problems).

    Google Scholar 

  80. M. Heidegger, Metaphysische Anfangsgrunde der Logik im Ausgang von Leibniz, edited by Klaus Held, Gesamtausgabe Vol. 26, Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, 1978, (hereafter Anfangsgrunde). English translation by Michael Heim, The Metaphysical Foudations of Logic, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1984, (hereafter Foundations).

    Google Scholar 

  81. Grundprobleme, p. 85; Basic Problems, p. 61.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Grundprobleme, p. 88; Basic Problems, p. 63.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Grundprobleme, p. 90; Basic Problems, p. 64.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Grundprobleme, p. 90; Basic Problems, p. 64.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Grundprobleme, p. 93;.Basic Problems, p. 66.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Zeit, p. 63; Time, p. 46. Especially in recent German philosophy, Heidegger’s criticism of the subject vs. object distinction has met with considerable systematic interest. See Ernst Tugendhat, Selbstbewußtsein und Selbstbestimmung, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, 1979; Martin Bartels, Selbstbewußtsein und Unbewußtes, de Gruyter, Berlin, 1976, pp. 132–188. Cf.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  87. Frederick A. Olafson, Heidegger and the Philosophy of Mind, Yale University Press, New Haven & London, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  88. M. Heidegger, Ontologie (Hermeneutik der Faktizität). Vorlesung Sommersemester 1923, edited by Käte Bröcker-Oltmanns, Gesamtausgabe Vol. 63, Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, 1958, (hereafter Ontologie), p 82.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Ontologie, p. 81.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Anfangsgründe, p. 167; Foundations, p. 133.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Anfangsgründe, p. 170; Foundations, p. 135.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Anfangsgründe, p. 214; Foundations, p. 167.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Zeit, p. 254; Time, p. 187. The primacy of implicit identification (or awareness) of something over explicit identification (or cognition) is also central in Johannes Daubert’s criticism of Husserl. See Karl Schuhmann and Barry Smith, ”Against Idealism: Johannes Daubert vs. Husserl’s Ideas I”, Review of Metaphysics, vol. 38 (1985), pp. 763–793, here p. 784.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Anfangsgründe, p. 169; Foundations, p. 134, with translation changed. Without mentioning HusserFs name, Heidegger argued already in 1919 (Weltanschauungsproblem, p. 89) that asking how something is ”given” means changing the original experience into a theoretical one.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Grundprobleme, p. 225; Basic Problems, p. 158.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Heidegger in his ”Gutachten über die Habilitationsschrift des Herrn Dr. Karl Löwith”, Marburg, 16.2.1928, p. 2: ”Das Ich-Du-Verhältnis läßt sich daher auch nicht als eine personifizierte Subjekt-Objekt-Beziehung fassen.”

    Google Scholar 

  99. Zeit, p. 334; Time, pp. 242–243, with translation changed.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Aristoteles, p. 80.

    Google Scholar 

  101. SZ, p. 68; BT, p. 97.

    Google Scholar 

  102. SZ, p. 73; BT, p. 103.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  104. For extensive discussion on this topic, see Gerold Prauss, Erkennen und Handeln in Heideggers ”Sein und Zeit”, Alber, Freiburg—München, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Zeit, p. 252; Time, p. 186.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Ibid., with translation changed.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Zeit, p. 287, Time, pp. 209–210, with translation changed.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Anfangsgründe, p. 232; Foundations, p. 180.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Grundprobleme, p. 242; Basic Problems, p. 170.

    Google Scholar 

  110. See note 102.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Anfangsgründe, p. 238; Foundations, p. 185.

    Google Scholar 

  112. SZ, p. 135; BT, p. 174.

    Google Scholar 

  113. SZ, p. 386; BT, p. 438.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Grundprobleme, p. 242; 54–55 Problems, p. 170.

    Google Scholar 

  115. ”Vom Wesen des Grundes”, in Wegmarken, pp. 21–71, here pp. 54–55. English translation by Terrence Malick, The Essence of Reasons, Northwestern University Press, Evanston, 1969, p. 89.

    Google Scholar 

  116. SZ, pp. 148–153; BT, pp. 188–195.

    Google Scholar 

  117. SZ, p. 153; BT, p. 194.

    Google Scholar 

  118. In”Einleitung in die Phänomenologie der Religion” (1920/21), Heidegger distinguishes between Umwelt, Mitwelt, Selbstwelt, and further-more calls art and science ”genuine life-worlds” (genuine Lebenswelten). (2.11.1920). (Nachschrift Becker) The same distinction is made in ”Augustinus und der Neuplatonismus” (Vorlesung, Freiburg 1921). (Nachschrift Becker.)

    Google Scholar 

  119. Zeit, p. 333; Time, p. 242.

    Google Scholar 

  120. ”Einleitung in die Phänomenologie der Religion”,”’Welt ist etwas, worin man leben kann (in einem Objekt kann man nicht leben).” (2.11.1920) In order to do justice to Husserl, it must be mentioned here that in Crisis §37 he stresses that the world is not an object. Even though Heidegger’s argument thus does not immediately apply to Husserl, it does seem to apply to Lewis, however. Calvin Normore, independently of Heidegger, has suggested to me (in pers. comm.) that Lewis’s concrete worlds cannot but be thought of as concrete objects. However, to conceive of worlds as concrete objects amounts to using the notion of ‘object’ in a highly unusual and obscure way. It certainly is part of our usual notion of concrete objects that we can point to them. But in the case of a world, e.g., our world, we can only ”wave our arms about in a vague way”; A.N. Prior and Kit Fine, Worlds, Times and Selves, University of Massachusetts Press, Armherst, 1977, p. 92.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Different uses of modal notions in Sein und Zeit are summarized without interpretation in Wolfgang Müller-Lauter, Möglichkeit und Wirklichkeit bei Martin Heidegger, de Gruyter, Berlin, 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  122. SZ, pp. 143–144; BT, p. 183.

    Google Scholar 

  123. SZ, p. 144; BT, p. 183.

    Google Scholar 

  124. M. Heidegger, Aristoteles. Metaphysik θ 1–3. Von Wesen und Wirklichkeit der Kraft, Vorlesung Sommersemester 1931, edited by Heinrich Hüni, Gesamtausgabe Vol. 33, Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, 1981, p. 165.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Jaakko Hintikka, with Unto Remes and Simo Knuuttila, Aristotle on Modality and Determinism, Acta Philosophica Fennica 29, 1, North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  126. SZ, p. 394; BT, p. 446.

    Google Scholar 

  127. ”Brief über den ‘Humanismus’”, in Wegmarken, pp. 145–194, (hereafter Brief)’, English translation by Frank A. Capuzzi in collaboration with J. Glenn Gray, ”Letter on Humanism”, in Martin Heidegger, Basic Writings, edited by David Farrell Krell, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London and Henley, 1978, pp. 193–242, (hereafter Letter), p. 196, translation changed.

    Google Scholar 

  128. Phys. III, 1, 201a10–11.

    Google Scholar 

  129. SZ, p. 145; BT, p. 186.

    Google Scholar 

  130. Zeit, p. 225; Time, p. 166.

    Google Scholar 

  131. SZ, p. 206; BT, p. 250.

    Google Scholar 

  132. Franz Brentano, Von der mannigfachen Bedeutung des Seienden nach Aristoteles, Georg Olms, Hildesheim, 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  133. See ”Mein Weg in die Phänomenologie”, in M. Heidegger, Zur Sache des Denkens, Niemeyer, Tübingen, 1969, pp. 81–90. English translation by Joan Stambaugh, ”My Way to Phenomenology”, in M. Heidegger, On Time and Being, edited by Joan Stambaugh, Harper & Row, New York, 1972, pp. 74–82.

    Google Scholar 

  134. See the letter to Löwith, page 151.

    Google Scholar 

  135. ”Phänomenologische Interpretationen zu Aristoteles” (1921/22), ”Aristoteles, Physik” (Freiburg 1922/23), ”Rhetorik” (Marburg 1924), ”Die Grundbegriffe der antiken Philosophie” (Marburg 1926), ”Aristoteles Metaphysik θ 1–3” (1931).

    Google Scholar 

  136. ”Die aristotelische Metaphysik ist vielleicht weiter als die heutige.” (5.11.1920, Nachschrift Becker)

    Google Scholar 

  137. ”Geschichte der Philosophie von Thomas von Aquino bis Kant” (1926). (2.11.1926, Nachschrift Seidemann.)

    Google Scholar 

  138. ”Die Grundbegriffe der antiken Philosophie” (Marburg 1926); ”Rhetorik” (Marburg 1924).

    Google Scholar 

  139. 22.7.1926: ”So gewinnen wir den Charakter des eigentlichen Seins: eigenständige Beständigkeit. Dem Zufalligen fehlt der Charakter der Beständigkeit. Es ist nur jeweilig und beliebig. Dem Wahrsein fehlt der Charakter der Eigenständigkeit, sofern es seinem eigenen Sein nach als Entdecken von etwas auf ein Seiendes, das es entdeckt, wesenhaft bezogen ist.” (Nachschrift Seidemann.)

    Google Scholar 

  140. Met. Γ 2 1003b 16.

    Google Scholar 

  141. 26.7.1926.

    Google Scholar 

  142. Ibid.: ”Die Bereitschaft zu etwas kommt allen Dingen zu, die wir gebrauchen. Jedes Gebrauchsding, Handwerkszeug, Material, hat die Bereitschaft zu etwas. Die Bereitschaft ist ein Charakter, der einem Vorhandenen zukommt. Dieser Charakter kennzeichnet dieses in der Hinsicht, daß es noch nicht ausdrücklich in Gebrauch genommen ist. Wenn es gebraucht wird, kommt es in eine ausgezeichnete Gegenwart, ausgezeichnete Anwesenheit. Vorher ist es nur verfügbar. Im Gebrauch dagegen kommt es mir in gewisser Weise näher. Im Gebraucht werden wird es gewissermassen wirk-lich. … Der Unterschied zwischen Wirklichkeit und Bereitschaft liegt darin: es handelt sich beide Male um ein Vorhandenes. … Aber beide Male ist es in verschiedener Aufdringlichkeit da.”

    Google Scholar 

  143. 29.7.26: ”… an der Aussage, am Satz der aussagt über das vorhandene Seiende …”

    Google Scholar 

  144. M. Heidegger, ”Seminar in Zähringen 1973”, in M. Heidegger, Vier Seminare, Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, 1977, pp. 110–138, here p. 115. The importance of Husserl’s categorial intuition for Heidegger is discussed by Marion Trapper, ”The Priority of Being or Consciousness for Phenomenology: Heidegger and Husserl”, Metaphilosophy, vol. 17 (1986), pp. 153–61.

    Google Scholar 

  145. Heidegger’s relation to Lask and Natorp seems worthy of further study. Both are mentioned and discussed in Weltanschauung, pp. 88, 99–109. Natorp ‘s stress on the practical is applauded by Heidegger in his article ”Zur Geschichte der philosophischen Lehrstuhles seit 1866”, in Hermann Hermelunk und Siegfried A. Kaehler (eds.), Die Philipps-Universität zu Marburg, N.G. Elwert’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Marburg, 1927, pp. 681–687, here p. 685. On the influence of Rickert, Dilthey and Lask,

    Google Scholar 

  146. see Hans-Martin Gerlach, Martin Heidegger. Denk- und Irrwege eines spätburgerlichen Philosophen, Akademie-Verlag, Berlin, 1982, pp. 44–51. On the influence of Lask,

    Google Scholar 

  147. see Wolf-Dieter Gudopp, Der junge Heidegger. Realität und Wahrheit in der Vorgeschichte von ”Sein und Zeit”, Akademie-Verlag, Berlin, 1983, pp. 30–34.

    Google Scholar 

  148. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  149. Ibid: ”Die Welt ist zumeist und zunächst in der Praxis da.”

    Google Scholar 

  150. Ibid: ”Der λογος durchherrscht das In-Sein.”

    Google Scholar 

  151. Zeit, p. 98; Time, p. 72.

    Google Scholar 

  152. Zeit, p. 115; Time, p. 84.

    Google Scholar 

  153. Zeit, p. 117; Time, p. 85.

    Google Scholar 

  154. Ibid. On Husserl’s and Heidegger’s conception of phenomenology, see Fr.-W. von Herrmann, Der Begriff der Phänomenologie bei Heidegger und Husserl, Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  155. Aristoteles, p. 58.

    Google Scholar 

  156. Grundprobleme, p. 15; Basic Problems, p. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  157. Grundprobleme, p. 19; Basic Problems, p. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  158. Zeit, p. 138; Time, p. 100.

    Google Scholar 

  159. Zeit, p. 143; Time, p. 103.

    Google Scholar 

  160. Zeit, p. 144; Time, pp. 104–105.

    Google Scholar 

  161. Zeit, p. 147; Time, p. 107.

    Google Scholar 

  162. Zeit, pp. 155–156; Time, p. 113.

    Google Scholar 

  163. Zeit, pp. 151–152; Time, p. 110, with translation changed. 166See the Introduction to this study.

    Google Scholar 

  164. Aristoteles, p. 163.

    Google Scholar 

  165. ”Wir vertreten die These: … Die Philosophie ist von der Säkularisierung zur Wissenschaß zu befreien.”(2.11.1920)

    Google Scholar 

  166. M. Heidegger, Kant und das Problem der Metaphysik, Verlag von Friedrich Cohen, Bonn, 1929, p. 221.

    Google Scholar 

  167. English translation by James S. Churchill, Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1962, p. 239.

    Google Scholar 

  168. Anfangsgrunde, p. 129; Foundations, p. 104.

    Google Scholar 

  169. Anfangsgründe, p. 130; Foundations, p. 105.

    Google Scholar 

  170. Anfangsgründe, p. 131; Foundations, p. 106.

    Google Scholar 

  171. Ontologie, p. 71.

    Google Scholar 

  172. M. Heidegger, Die Grundbegriffe der Metaphysik. Welt—Endlichkeit—Einsamkeit, (1929/30), edited by Fr.-W. von Herrmann, Gesamtausgabe Vol. 29/30, Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, 1983, p. 25.

    Google Scholar 

  173. ”§34. Dasein and Discourse. Language”, SZ, pp. 160–166; BT, pp. 203–210. For a detailed commentary on this section, see Fr.-W. von Herrmann, Subjekt und Dasein. Interpretationen zu ”Sein und Zeit”, Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, 1985, pp. 92–224.

    Google Scholar 

  174. Cf. also Manfred Stassen, Heideggers Philosophie der Sprache in ”Sein und Zeit” Bouvier, Bonn, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  175. Zeit, p. 361; Time, p. 263.

    Google Scholar 

  176. SZ, p. 158; BT, p. 201. For a more detailed exposition of this question, see G. Figal, Martin Heidegger. Phänomenologie der Freiheit, pp. 54–73;

    Google Scholar 

  177. and Mark Okrent, Heidegger’s Pragmatism. Understanding, Being, and the Critique of Metaphysics, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London, 1988, pp. 52–73.

    Google Scholar 

  178. Zeit, p. 289; Time, p. 211.

    Google Scholar 

  179. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  180. Grundprobleme, p. 293; Basic Problems, p. 206.

    Google Scholar 

  181. Zeit, p. 75; Time, p. 56.

    Google Scholar 

  182. ”Rhetorik”: ”… gibt die Richtungen vor, in denen das Dasein die Welt und sich selbst befragen kann.”

    Google Scholar 

  183. Zeit, p. 375; Time, p. 271.

    Google Scholar 

  184. M. Heidegger, Logik. Die Frage nach der Wahrheit (1925/26), edited by Walter Biemel, Gesamtausgabe Vol. 21, Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, 1976, p. 91.

    Google Scholar 

  185. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  186. Ibid., p. 92.

    Google Scholar 

  187. Ibid., p. 93.

    Google Scholar 

  188. Ibid., pp. 9–10.

    Google Scholar 

  189. Ibid., p. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  190. Logik, p. 159; Logic, p. 127.

    Google Scholar 

  191. Tugendhat, Der Wahrheitsbegriff …, pp. 331–32.

    Google Scholar 

  192. Tugendhat, Der Wahrheitsbegriff …, pp. 332–33.

    Google Scholar 

  193. Logik. Die Frage nach der Wahrheit, p. 164.

    Google Scholar 

  194. Zeit, p. 310; Time, p. 226.

    Google Scholar 

  195. Zeit, p. 313; Time, p. 228, with translation changed.

    Google Scholar 

  196. Zeit, p. 313; Time, p. 228; SZ, p. 227; BT, p. 269.

    Google Scholar 

  197. Aristoteles, pp. 163–164.

    Google Scholar 

  198. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  199. Die Grundbegriffe der Metaphysik, p. 27.

    Google Scholar 

  200. Ibid., p. 28.

    Google Scholar 

  201. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  202. See Thomas Sheehan, ”Caveat Lector: The New Heidegger”, The New York Review of Books (Dec. 4, 1980), pp. 39–40;

    Google Scholar 

  203. and Daniel Dahlstrom, ”Heidegger’s Last Word”, Review of Metaphysics, vol. 41 (1988), pp. 589–606.

    Google Scholar 

  204. M. Heidegger, ”Der Ursprung des Kunstwerks”(1936), in M. Heidegger, Holzwege, Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, 1950, pp. 7–68, (hereafter Ursprung);

    Google Scholar 

  205. English translation by Albert Hofstadter ”Origin of the Work of Art”, in M. Heidegger, Poetry, Language, Thought, edited by Albert Hofstadter, Harper & Row, New York, 1971, pp. 17–87, (hereafter Origin).

    Google Scholar 

  206. Ursprung, p. 14; Origin, p. 25.

    Google Scholar 

  207. Ursprung, p. 15; Origin, p. 25.

    Google Scholar 

  208. Ursprung, p. 16; Origin, p. 26.

    Google Scholar 

  209. Ursprung, p. 19; Origin, p. 30, with translation changed.

    Google Scholar 

  210. Ursprung, pp. 24–27; Origin, pp. 35–39.

    Google Scholar 

  211. Ursprung, pp. 24–25; Origin, p. 35.

    Google Scholar 

  212. Ursprung, p. 33; Origin, pp. 44–45, with translation changed.

    Google Scholar 

  213. Ursprung, p. 37; Origin, pp. 45–49, with translation changed.

    Google Scholar 

  214. Ursprung, p. 40; Origin, p. 51.

    Google Scholar 

  215. Ursprung, p. 41; Origin, p. 52.

    Google Scholar 

  216. Ursprung, pp. 41–42; Origin, p. 53, translation changed. For a detailed investigation into the notion of Lichtung and its historical sources and parallels, see Leonardo Amoroso, ”Heideggers ‘Lichtung’ als ‘lucus a (non) lucendo’”, Philosophisches Jahrbuch, vol. 90 (1983), pp. 153–68.

    Google Scholar 

  217. Ursprung, p. 42; Origin, pp. 53–54, translation changed.

    Google Scholar 

  218. Ursprung, p. 43; Origin, p. 54, with translation changed.

    Google Scholar 

  219. Ursprung, pp. 41–42; Origin, p. 53.

    Google Scholar 

  220. Ursprung, p. 47; Origin, p. 59, with translation changed.

    Google Scholar 

  221. Ursprung, p. 48; Origin, p. 59, with translation changed.

    Google Scholar 

  222. Ursprung, p. 51; Origin, p. 62, with translation changed.

    Google Scholar 

  223. Ursprung, p. 55; Origin, p. 67.

    Google Scholar 

  224. Ursprung, p. 59; Origin, p. 72. 257Ursprung, p. 60; Origin, p. 73.

    Google Scholar 

  225. Ursprung, p. 61; Origin, p. 74, with translation changed.

    Google Scholar 

  226. Ursprung, p. 61; Origin, p. 74. 260Ursprung, p. 64; Origin, p. 77.

    Google Scholar 

  227. M. Heidegger, Einführung in die Metaphysik, Niemeyer, Tübingen, 1953, (hereafter Einführung), p. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  228. English translation by Ralph Manheim, An Introduction to Metaphysics, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1959, (hereafter Introduction), p. 18, translation changed.

    Google Scholar 

  229. M. Heidegger, Der Satz vom Grund, Neske, Pfullingen, 1957, p.119.

    Google Scholar 

  230. Brief, p. 162; Letter, p. 210.

    Google Scholar 

  231. M. Heidegger, ”Zur Seinsfrage”(1955), in Wegmarken, pp. 213–253 here p. 239.

    Google Scholar 

  232. English translation by William Kluback and Jean T. Wilde, The Question of Being, Vision, London, 1959, p. 81.

    Google Scholar 

  233. Brief, p. 158; Letter, p. 206, translation changed.

    Google Scholar 

  234. M. Heidegger, ”Die Sprache”, (1950/51), in Unterwegs zur Sprache, Neske, Pfullingen, 1959, p. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  235. English translation by Alfred Hofstadter, ”Language”, in M. Heidegger, Poetry, Language, Thought, edited by A. Hofstadter, Harper & Row, New York, 1975, pp. 189–210, here p. 191, with translation changed.

    Google Scholar 

  236. M. Heidegger, ”Das Wesen der Sprache”(1957/58), in Unterwegs zur Sprache, pp. 157–216, here p. 213.

    Google Scholar 

  237. English translation by Peter D. Hertz, ”The Nature of Language”, in M. Heidegger, On the Way to Language, Harper & Row, New York and Evanston, 1971, pp. 57–108, here p. 106.

    Google Scholar 

  238. M. Heidegger, ”Das Ding”(1950), in M. Heidegger, Vorträge und Aufsätze, Neske, Pfullingen, 1954, pp. 163–185, here p. 178;

    Google Scholar 

  239. English translation by Alfred Hofstadter, ”The Thing”, in Poetry, Language, Thought, pp. 165–186, here pp. 79–80, with translation changed.

    Google Scholar 

  240. ”Seminar in Zähringen 1973”, p. 135.

    Google Scholar 

  241. Ibid., p. 137.

    Google Scholar 

  242. Ibid., p. 138. Thus it seems quite adequate to characterize the philosophy or thought of the later Heidegger as ”tautological”. This is done in Tzewan Kwan, Die hermeneutische Phänomenologie und das tautologische Denken Heideggers, Bouvier, Bonn, 1982, especially pp. 129–37, 168–72.

    Google Scholar 

  243. ”Das Wesen der Sprache”, p. 191; ”The Essence of Language”, p. 85.

    Google Scholar 

  244. ”Aus einem Gespräch von der Sprache”, in Unterwegs zur Sprache, pp. 83–156. English translation by Peter D. Hertz, ”A Dialogue on Language”, in On the Way to Language, pp. 1–56.

    Google Scholar 

  245. M. Heidegger, ”Hölderlin und das Wesen der Dichtung”, in M. Heidegger, Erläuterungen zu Hölderlins Dichtung, edited by Friedrich-Wilhelm von Herrmann, Gesamtausgabe Vol. 4, Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, 1981, pp. 33–48, here p. 36.

    Google Scholar 

  246. English translation by Douglas Scott, ”Hölderlin and the Essence of Poetry”, in M. Heidegger, Existence and Being, Regnery/Gateway, South Bond, Indiana, 1979, pp. 270–291, here p. 275, with translation changed.

    Google Scholar 

  247. Brief, p. 163; Letter, p. 211, translation changed.

    Google Scholar 

  248. See M. Heidegger, Die Technik und die Kehre, Neske, Pfullingen, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  249. English translation by William Lovitt in M. Heidegger, The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, Harper & Row, New York, 1977, pp. 3–49.

    Google Scholar 

  250. Der Satz vom Grund, p. 109.

    Google Scholar 

  251. Ibid., p. 110.

    Google Scholar 

  252. ”Die Frage nach der Technik”(1954), in Die Technik und die Kehre, pp. 5–36, here p. 17. English translation, ”The Question Concerning Technology”, in The Question Concerning Technology, pp. 3–35, here p. 18.

    Google Scholar 

  253. ”Die Frage nach der Technik”, p. 18; ”The Question Concerning Technology”, p. 19. On Heidegger’s view of technology, see Wolfgang Schirmacher, Technik und Gelassenheit. Zeitkritik nach Heidegger, Alber, Freiburg-München, 1983;

    Google Scholar 

  254. Günter Seebold, Heideggers Analyse der neuzeitlichen Technik, Alber, Freiburg-München, 1986;

    Google Scholar 

  255. John Loscerbo, Being and Technology. A Study in the Philosophy of Martin Heidegger, Mar-tinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  256. ”Protokoll zu einem Seminar über den Vortrag ‘Zeit und Sein’”(1962), in Zur Sache des Denkens, pp. 27–58, here p. 32. English translation by Joan Stambaugh, ”Summary of a Seminar on the Lecture ‘Time and Being’”, in On Time and Being, pp. 25–54, here p. 29. For a concise summary of Heidegger’s history of Being, see e.g., Helga Kuschbert-Tölle, Martin Heidegger. Der letzte Metaphysiker?, Forum Academicum, Königstein/Ts., 1979, pp. 75–104; or Werner Marx, Heidegger und die Tradition, 2nd impression, Meiner, Hamburg, 1980, pp. 131–182.

    Google Scholar 

  257. Brief, p. 145; Letter, p. 193.

    Google Scholar 

  258. Brief, p. 150; Letter, p. 199.

    Google Scholar 

  259. Brief, p. 158; Letter, p. 206, translation changed.

    Google Scholar 

  260. Brief, p. 192; Letter, p. 239, translation changed.

    Google Scholar 

  261. Der Satz vom Grund, p. 158.

    Google Scholar 

  262. Einführung, p. 62; Introduction, p. 82, translation changed.

    Google Scholar 

  263. ”Die Sprache”, p. 33; ”Language”, p. 210, with translation changed.

    Google Scholar 

  264. ”Der Weg zur Sprache”(1959), in Unterwegs zur Sprache, pp. 239–268, here p. 254. English translation, ”The Way to Language”, in On the Way to Language, pp. 111–138, here pp. 123–124. For a detailed commentary on this crucial text, see Peter J. McCormick, Heidegger and the Language of the World, University of Ottawa Press, Ottawa, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  265. ”… dichterisch wohnet der Mensch …”(1951), in Vorträge und Aufsätze, pp. 187–204, p. 190. English translation by Alfred Hofstadter, ”… Poetically Man Dwells …”, in Poetry, Language, Thought, pp. 213–229, here p. 215.

    Google Scholar 

  266. Ursprung, p. 50; Origin, p. 62, with translation changed.

    Google Scholar 

  267. M. Heidegger, Hölderlin Hymnen ”Germanien”und ”Der Rhein”(1934/35), edited by Susanne Ziegler, Gesamtausgabe Vol. 39, Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, 1980, p. 217.

    Google Scholar 

  268. Richard Rorty presents the Heideggerian poets as if they were to create freely and arbitrarily their language game: ”Heidegger wider die Pragmatisten”, Neue Hefte für Philosophie, vol. 23 (1984), pp. 1–22, here p. 17.

    Google Scholar 

  269. ”… dichterisch wohnet der Mensch …”, p. 190; ”Poetically Man Dwells …”, p. 216, with translation changed.

    Google Scholar 

  270. ”Zur Erörterung der Gelassenheit. Aus einem Feldweggespräch über das Denken”(1944/45), in M. Heidegger, Aus der Erfahrung des Denkens, edited by Herrmann Heidegger, Gesamtausgabe Vol. 13, Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, 1983, pp. 37–74, here p. 42. English translation by John M. Anderson and E. Hans Freund, ”Discourse on Thinking”, in M. Heidegger, Discourse on Thinking, Harper & Row, New York, 1966, pp. 58–90, here pp. 60–61.

    Google Scholar 

  271. Brief, p. 145; Letter, p. 193.

    Google Scholar 

  272. M. Heidegger, ”Seminar in Le Thor 1966”, in Vier Seminare, pp. 9–23; here p. 22. On the relation between poetry and thought, see Fr.-W. von Herrmann, ”Nachbarschaft von Denken und Dichten als Wesensnähe und Wesensdifferenz”, forthcoming; and Joseph Kockelmans, On the Truth of Being. Reflections on Heidegger’s Later Philosophy, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1984, pp. 196–208.

    Google Scholar 

  273. Ursprung, pp, 60–61; Origin, p. 73.

    Google Scholar 

  274. Hölderlins Hymnen …, p. 64.

    Google Scholar 

  275. M. Heidegger, Parmenides (1942/43), edited by Manfred S. Frings, Gesamtausgabe Vol. 54, Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, 1982, p. 127.

    Google Scholar 

  276. ”Hebel-der Hausfreund”(1957), in Aus der Erfahrung des Denkens, pp. 133–150, here p. 149.

    Google Scholar 

  277. ”Der Weg zur Sprache”, pp. 264–265; ”The Way to Language”, p. 132.

    Google Scholar 

  278. ”Züricher Seminar. Aussprache am 6. November 1951”, in M. Heidegger, Seminare, edited by Curd Ochwaldt, Gesamtausgabe Vol. 15, Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, 1986, pp. 423–439, here p. 437. On Heidegger’s criticism of formal logic,

    Google Scholar 

  279. see Albert Borgmann, ”Heidegger and Symbolic Logic”, in Michael Murray (ed.), Heidegger and Modern Philosophy, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1978, pp. 3–22;

    Google Scholar 

  280. and Thomas A. Fay, Heidegger: The Critique of Logic, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1977, pp. 70–92.

    Google Scholar 

  281. Brief, p. 150; Letter, p. 199.

    Google Scholar 

  282. Ursprung, p. 61; Origin, p. 185.

    Google Scholar 

  283. ”Aus einem Gespräch von der Sprache”, p. 90; ”A Dialogue on Language”, p. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  284. J. Derrida, La carte postale, Flammarion, Paris, 1980, p. 73. I find it easy to agree with Derrida when he writes in another place that in reading Heidegger one is constantly drawn between two feelings: Heidegger’s text, ”c’est toujours terriblement dangereux et follement drôle, sûrement grave et un peu comique”.

    Google Scholar 

  285. J. Derrida, De l’esprit. Heidegger et la question, éditions galilée, Paris, 1987, p. 109. For a brief exposition of Derrida’s criticism of Heidegger,

    Google Scholar 

  286. see John D. Caputo, Radical Hermeneutics, Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1987, pp. 160–171.

    Google Scholar 

  287. ”Seminar in Le Thor 1969”, in Vier Seminare, pp. 64–109, p. 65.

    Google Scholar 

  288. Ludwig Wittgenstein, ”On Heidegger on Being and Dread”, with commentary by Michael Murray, in Murray (ed.), Heidegger and Modern Philosophy, pp. 80–83.

    Google Scholar 

  289. M. Heidegger und E. Fink, Heraklit, (1966/67), Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, 1970, p. 31.

    Google Scholar 

  290. English translation by Charles H. Seibert, Heraclitus Seminar 1966/67, The University of Alabama Press, Alabama, 1979, p. 17.

    Google Scholar 

  291. See Karl-Otto Apel, ”Wittgenstein und Heidegger: Die Frage nach dem Sinn von Sein und der Sinnlosigkeitsverdacht gegen alle Metaphysik”(1967), in K.-O. Apel, Transformation der Philosophie, Vol. 1, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, 2nd impression, 1981, pp. 225–275; ”Heideggers philosophische Radikalisierung der ”Hermeneutik”und die Frage nach dem ‘Sinnkriterium’der Sprache”(1968), ibid., pp. 276–334; ”Wittgenstein und das Problem des hermeneu tischen Verstehens”(1966), ibid., pp. 335–377. See also the bibliograpy of studies on this topic (up to 1974) in Franzen, Martin Heidegger, pp. 102–4. For more recent studies,

    Google Scholar 

  292. see Steven L. Bindeman, Heidegger and Wittgenstein. The Poetics of Silence, University Press of America, Lanham-New York-London, 1981;

    Google Scholar 

  293. Thomas Rentsch, Heidegger und Wittgenstein. Existential- und Sprachanalysen zu den Grundlagen philosophischer Anthropologie, Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart, 1985;

    Google Scholar 

  294. and Jörg Zimmermann, Wittgensteins sprachphilosophische Hermeneutik, Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  295. Otto Pöggeler, Heidegger und die hermeneutische Philosophie, Alber, Freiburg und München, 1983, p. 396.

    Google Scholar 

  296. Ibid. Heidegger used the same expression in conversations with Fr.-W. von Herrmann (pers. comm.).

    Google Scholar 

  297. Satz vom Grund, p. 170.

    Google Scholar 

  298. Ibid., p. 170.

    Google Scholar 

  299. On Heidegger’s relation to Hölderlin, see Beda Allemann, Hölderlin und Heidegger, Atlantis, Zürich und Freiburg im Breisgau, 1954;

    Google Scholar 

  300. Otto Pöggeler, ”Heideggers Begegnung mit Hölderlin”, Man and World, vol. 10 (1977), pp. 13–61;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  301. and, more generally, David A. White, Heidegger and the Language of Poetry, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln and London, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  302. Apel, ”Wittgenstein und Heidegger …”, p. 238; St. A. Erickson, Language and Being. An Analytical Phenomenology, New Haven, 1970, p. 28. Th. Rentsch, Heidegger und Wittgenstein, pp. 66–67.

    Google Scholar 

  303. L. Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, translated by D.F. Pears and B.F. McGuiness, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1961, 6.54.

    Google Scholar 

  304. Ibid., 4.12.

    Google Scholar 

  305. M.B. Hintikka & J. Hintikka, Investigating Wittgenstein, p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  306. Ibid., p. 23.

    Google Scholar 

  307. This point was first made by Eugen Kaelin (J. Hintikka, pers. comm.). Heidegger’s language and especially his tautologies are investigated by Erasmus Schöfer, Die Sprache Heideggers, Neske, Pfullingen, 1962; see especially the chapter on Heideggerian tautologies as figurae etymologicae, pp. 202–217. This chapter has been translated by Joseph J. Kockelmans, ”Heidegger’s Language: Metalogical Forms of Thought and Grammatical Specialties”, in Joseph J. Kockelmans (ed.), On Heidegger and Language, Northwestern University Press, Evanston, 1972, pp. 281–301, here pp. 287–301.

    Google Scholar 

  308. See Investigating Wittgenstein, p. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  309. M. Heidegger, Hölderlins Hymne ”Der Ister”(1942), edited by Walter Biemel, Gesamtausgabe Vol. 53, Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, 1984, p. 75.

    Google Scholar 

  310. In The Intentions of Intentionality, pp. 223–251.

    Google Scholar 

  311. Hans Rainer Sepp, ”Annäherung an die Wirklichkeit. Phänomenologie und Malerei nach 1900”, in Sepp (ed.), Edmund Husserl und die phänomenologische Bewegung, pp. 77–99.

    Google Scholar 

  312. ”Concept as Vision”, p. 232.

    Google Scholar 

  313. Ibid., p. 229.

    Google Scholar 

  314. Ibid., p. 239.

    Google Scholar 

  315. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  316. Nelson Goodman, Languages of art: an approach to a theory of symbols, 5 pr. Hackett, Indianapolis, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  317. See Die Kunst und der Raum. L’art et l’espace, Erker-Verlag, St. Gallen, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  318. It seems that this important result, namely that the discussion of modes of representation is missing from Heidegger’s writings on purpose, has not yet been paid proper attention to in Heidegger scholarship. For instance the commentaries by Hans-Georg Gadamer (Heideggers Wege, Mohr, Tübingen, 1983),

    Google Scholar 

  319. Friedrich-Wilhelm von Herrmann (Heideggers Philosophie der Kunst, Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, 1980)

    Google Scholar 

  320. Joseph J. Kockelmans (Heidegger on Art and Art Works, Nijhoff, The Hague, 1985) are all surprisingly silent on this point.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  321. The point is also missed by Gerhard Faden, Der Schein der Kunst. Zu Heideggers Kritik der Ästhetik, Neumann, Königshausen, 1986. The isomorphism between Heidegger’s philosophy of art in ”Der Ursprung” and his later pronouncements on language also makes me doubt Otto Pöggeler’s claim according to which ”Der Ursprung” belongs to a mere ”romantic” phase that Heidegger subsequently overcame.

    Google Scholar 

  322. See Otto Pöggeler, Philosophie und Politik bei Heidegger, Alber, Freiburg und München, 1972, p. 122.

    Google Scholar 

  323. M. Heidegger und Erhart Kästner, Briefwechsel, herausgegeben von Heinrich W. Petzet, Insel Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, 1986, p. 121.

    Google Scholar 

  324. Heinrich Wiegand Petzet, Auf einen Stern zugehen. Begegnungen und Gespräche mit Martin Heidegger 1929–1976, Societäts-Verlag, Freiburg, 1983, p. 153.

    Google Scholar 

  325. Ibid., p. 153.

    Google Scholar 

  326. Ibid., p. 153.

    Google Scholar 

  327. Ibid., p. 157.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Oulu, Filand

    Martin Kusch

Authors
  1. Martin Kusch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1989 Kluwer Academic Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kusch, M. (1989). Heidegger’s Ontology and Language as the Universal Medium. In: Language as Calculus vs. Language as Universal Medium. Synthese Library, vol 207. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2417-8_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2417-8_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-010-7589-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-009-2417-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation