Tuesday, March 19, 2019


Howsofar is the Thinking Justified which thinks the “ontological difference” as a modification of Husserl's Phenomenology?






Being is. Beings are. Is and are are forms of the same word, fitted to plural and singular. 
The designations plural and singular make no distinction between absolute plural and 
absolute singular. Being “is one” in the sense said by Parmenides is no different from 
saying that a clod of dirt in a field is one (clod, among others). The thing pointed to, so 
far as language speaks naturally (n.b.!), never reaches being in the sense of the “is”. If being is 
one, it names what “is”. Hen, one, and ta panta, the many, both “are”. The are and the is 
are separated in a way that does not touch on being in the way it is spoken by the 
ergon with the name Heidegger. 




Being is. Beings are. Howsofar is this thought as a “difference” at all? Rather, in Heidegger, 
these sayings name the thinking rather than knowing which is in question as the subject 
matter. Beings, are never without, being. But a being, the grammatical referent, the clod, 
the thing that “primary substance” is attributed to according to the Greek theoria of phusis 
(idea, idos) as morphe (form), is. One thing that can be pointed to by a finger on a human 
hand is. Ergo: one (thing) is. But, also, one, as Hen, is. The Parmenidean on, also, is.

It is in just this sense that we hold that the Heideggerian ontological difference names 
a modification of phenomenological research. This has its counterpart in the claim that 
“clock time” already had a prefigured past prior to its theorization in the day and the night. 
This goes further. The Promethean is also to be set aside in this thinking of being as the 
“is” which is many and is one. The Promethean moves in the sphere of the attempt to 
establish the concept of regularity as a truth. Ergo, that the cosmic gods were set aside 
because human beings discovered the nomos of phusis, much prior to any theoria of 
this finding. That the seasons followed each other, for example, was not known to early 
beings. Instead, the hot and the cold seasons came when they did, without order. 
On the other hand, the Promethean, in modern times, means the attempt to think the 
human without the embarrassment of the animal nature. Ergo: the “animal is a human 
without ratio”, read as an absurdity to embarrass the Aristotelian differentia or definition 
out of truth or intellect which appeals to the truth. The Promethean then is a name, in 
modernity, in some sense: for the radical conversion to the transcendental imagination 
which is then set aside as though it were only a matter of removing Aristotelian naiveté. 




For Phenomenology this is tacitly settled by the naked refusal of nature, and the 
acceptance only of essences, of the phenomenological as what is “holding sway” 
as what it is = understood clearly to be this or that, whether of an entity or of the 
content of a sentence. Ergo, the distinction between history, the region of direct 
data, and, on the other hand, reason, what is brought out by discussing the data 
under the shadow of the houses, as it were, is essentially possible, but not true by 
nature. It belongs only to intelligibility, which, on the whole, is kept in abeyance. 
No knowing is here possible so far as knowing belongs to nature. However, this 
is all, in Heidegger, already subject to the prefiguring of “day and night”, of “clock time”, 
of what was already there for humans before the “break down” of theoretical presence. 
We here notice, that in Dreyfus presence is misunderstood to mean something like 
a man in an armchair. Rather, on the whole, presence means the same thing as the 
technological essence. For us, all is presence, all is moglichkeit as a drunkenness 
and Hobbsein (Hobbes, the translator of Gallean method into the philisophic sphere: 
into the lawmaker's art, political philosophy) pride. A recent book is titled: 
“the Cult of the Irrelevant” (which, however, concerns the related sphere of policy 
rather than law), which signals that this Nietzschean truth, as it were, 
is still being announced, as if it were not quite rightly known, in our own time.




The ontological difference at the same time means: philosophy no longer exists. 
Philosophy is the name for the highest use of reason. Reason has no essential 
part in the European science, but only in the accident of imagining working assumptions. 
The European Science is vert-frei. However, the theory of the value free fact is not 
scientifically establishable. The abiotic region of wind and storm, or of the cosmic 
gods is at play. Reason then, can not longer do but to attempt to think being. 
This being is first a modification of the phenomenology of Husserl as the: 
failure of reason, of the essence of man. In this sense, it is meant, in Heidegger, 
to declare itself without belonging to the history which has its center in time with the 
Greek positing of nature. The theoria of nature has failed. But, only when thought 
by the Promethean drive which seeks to raise the ant, the man in the cave, 
to the sure regular knowledge of phusis as an absolute pleasure. This “mission” 
(to use an expression favoured by Alexander Dugin) then is obstruction in being.  

No comments:

Post a Comment