Author: Heidegger article Source: Author authorized hits: 244 Update time: 2006- 1-2 1

Translated by Sun Zhouxing

Editor's Note: The original text of this article contains Heidegger's lectures and essays, and the original Chinese translation contains Sun Zhouxing's Heidegger's selected works. This is the Chinese translation of the newly revised lectures and papers. Thank you for your kindness.

When we think for ourselves, we realize what we need to think about. In order to make this attempt successful, we must be ready to learn ideas.

Once we are engaged in this kind of study, we have admitted that we can't think yet.

However, people are considered as thinking animals. People have reason to be regarded as such things. Because people are rational creatures. And reason, that is, ratio, develops itself in thought. As a rational creature, as long as people are willing, he will definitely think. However, people may want to think, but can't. In the final analysis, in this ideological will, people want too much, so they can do too little.

As far as the possibility of thinking is concerned, people can think. However, this possibility does not guarantee that we can really think. Because being able to do something means: making something enter ourselves according to its essence, [2] urgently guarding this entrance. But we can only do what we like, because we allow it in. Actually, we only like that thing. It always likes us from itself in advance, and it likes our essence because it tends to this essence. Through this tendency, our essence is occupied. [4] The tendency is Zuspruch. This kind of commitment attracts our essence, calls us to do it and keeps us in it. Really speaking, guarding is guarding. [5] However, only when we come from ourselves and personally keep what keeps us, what keeps us in essence can keep us. When we don't let it disappear from memory, we keep it. Memory is a collection of thoughts. Where shall we meet? To what keeps us essential, because it is also considered here. Why must this thing that protects us be considered? Because this is something worth thinking about. If it is thought, it will be missed. We send it a gift because we like it as our basic promise.

We can think only when we like what needs thinking.

To enter this kind of thinking, as far as we are concerned, we must learn to think. What is learning? People's learning, in essence, is to adapt their own promising and inaction to their own promises. We learn ideas by focusing on what needs to be considered.

Our language calls the essential connotation of friends and things from friends friendly things. Therefore, we now call what we need to think about ourselves something to think about. [6] Everything that can be considered gives us thinking. However, the reason why there is such a kind of giving is always just because what can be considered has come from itself and become something to be considered. Therefore, from now on, in the following discussion, we will call what has been endowed with thoughts since ancient times what was endowed with thoughts before everything, so we will always give thoughts to it as the most thoughtful thing.

What are you most worried about? In our thoughtful era, where does it show itself?

The most considerate thing is that we haven't decided yet. Although the world situation continues to be thought-provoking, we have never thought about it. It is true that this process seems to require people to take action without delay, rather than empty talk at various consultations and international conferences, and is not limited to simply putting forward concepts such as what should be done and how it must be done. From this perspective, what is lacking is action, not thought.

However, for centuries, until now, perhaps people have done too much and thought too little.

But today, there are more enthusiastic and lasting interests in philosophy everywhere, and almost everyone wants to know what philosophy is. At this time, how can we assert that we haven't thought about it?

Philosophers are these thinkers. The reason for saying this is that this idea first occurred in philosophy. No one will deny that people are interested in philosophy today. However, as far as people's understanding of "interest" is concerned, is there anything that people are not interested in now?

Interest means: under things, in things, in the center of things, in things. [8] However, for today's interests, what matters is only the interesting things. This interesting thing makes people think from another angle. After a while, they don't care. If they are replaced by another interesting thing, this interesting thing has little to do with people, just like the previous interesting thing it replaced. Today, people often think that finding something interesting means showing great respect for it. In fact, when people came to this conclusion, they had already thrown this interesting thing into an indifferent and boring situation.

People show some interest in philosophy, which by no means proves that people are ready to think. The fact that we have been studying the papers and works of great thinkers for many years still cannot guarantee that we are thinking or even preparing to learn. This kind of philosophical research activity may even give us the most stubborn illusion that we are thinking because we are really "doing philosophy".

But it seems presumptuous to assert that we haven't decided yet. But this argument has another meaning. What it says is: In our thoughtful times, the most thoughtful thing is that we haven't thought yet. This argument shows that the most worrying thing has manifested itself. This assertion never dares to make a contemptuous judgment: the only thing that is popular everywhere is the state of not thinking. The so-called "we haven't thought of it" is not to severely condemn an oversight. What can be thought is thought. It calls us from itself and wants us to face it thoughtfully. What can be considered is by no means something we casually put forward. It doesn't just depend on our appearance. We gave everything we could think of, and it gave us room to think. It gives what it has. [9] It has its own place. Most things that come from our own thinking, that is, the most thoughtful things, should be displayed at points that we have not thought about. What is this talking about? What is said is: we have not entered that field in particular, that is, the field of things that come from ourselves before everything else has been considered by everything else. Why haven't we entered that field yet? Maybe it's because we haven't fully faced the things to be considered? If so, the so-called "we haven't decided yet" is just a delay. Then, for this defect, of course, we can make up for it in a human way through appropriate human measures.

However, we haven't thought yet, not only because people haven't fully faced what comes from themselves and need to think. That is to say, we haven't thought yet, but because the thing to think about (das zu-Denkende) itself has leaned forward from the person, even for a long time.

We immediately want to know when and how the distortion referred to here happened. In the past, we would be more curious to ask: how on earth can we know such an event? If we make an assertion about the most thoughtful things and think that what really gives us thoughts is not twisted away from people at a certain time in history, on the contrary, things that need to be thought about are kept in such a twisted away place from the beginning, then such problems will follow. However, this kind of twisting will only happen where one direction has already appeared. If the most thoughtful thing is still in a twisted state, it has already happened, and it is only within its direction, that is, it has given people ideas. Although all kinds of twists have been opened, what remains to be thought has been promised to the essence of human beings. Therefore, people in our history have always thought in an essential way. He even thought of the deepest things. The rest of the thought has always been entrusted to this kind of thought, of course, in a strange way. In other words, the thought so far has not thought at all: what needs to be thought is still hidden here.

But what are we talking about? Isn't that just a series of strange empty arguments? Where is the evidence? Does the above statement have anything to do with science? It is a good thing if we persist in this boycott attitude as long as possible. Because only in this way can we keep the distance necessary for the run-up. From this kind of run-up, one person or another person may successfully sprout [10] and jump into the thoughts of the most thoughtful things.

In other words, one thing is true: the above-mentioned things and the whole discussion below have nothing to do with science, but it is precisely when this discussion will become an idea. The reason for this situation is that science cannot think. Science can't think, because from its behavior and auxiliary means, science will never think-that is, it won't think in the way of a thinker. Science can't think, which is not a shortcoming, but an advantage. Only this advantage ensures the possibility of science, which makes it possible to enter and settle in a separate object field through research. Science can't think. This is an inappropriate proposition for the usual appearance. Let's keep this proposition undirected, even if there is a postcondition behind it: as everyone does, science depends on ideas. However, only when the gap between science and thought becomes clear and insurmountable can the relationship between science and thought be truly fruitful. There is no bridge from science to thought, only a leap. Where will this leap take us? Not just the other side, but a completely different place. If proof means to deduce a proposition about a state of affairs from an appropriate premise through a series of reasoning, then what is unfolded with it can never be proved. Anyone who conceals himself should make a proof of what appears from himself or has made a proof, and will never judge according to a higher and stricter knowledge scale. He only uses one scale to calculate, and it is an inappropriate scale. Because, just like this, what shows itself through self-shielding, we can only respond to it in the following ways, that is, we should point out to ourselves and give ourselves instructions to let what shows itself appear in its unique unmasked state. This simple guide (das Weisen) is the basic feature of thought, that is, the way to give people something to think about from the beginning. The so-called proof is to let go of everything according to the appropriate premise. However, guidance, through an instruction, is open to arrival, but only a few people are spared, and this few are rare.

In our thoughtful age, the most thoughtful thing is that we have no thoughts yet. We haven't thought yet because what we want to think is distorted away from people, not just because people don't fully face what we want to think. Things to consider are far away from people. It hides itself by detaining itself. But detainees are always brought to us. What this kind of detention covers has not disappeared. However, how do we know what we are hiding in this way? How can we give it a name? Self concealer refused to arrive. Just-this kind of self-concealment (Sichenntziehen) [11] is not without its merits. Here, concealment is detention, and as such detention, it is -Ereignis. What is hidden in itself may be more intrinsically related to people, and it needs people's inner self more than the people present. People like to regard the shocking state caused by reality as something that constitutes reality. But the state of shock caused by reality may only separate people from things that care about themselves-this concern is to abandon people by hiding themselves in a rather mysterious way. Therefore, the concealment that requires the thinker to conceal himself may now be more contemporary than all realistic things, as Ereignis.

It is true that what was hidden from us in the above way was pulled away from us, but at the same time it just pulled us away and sucked us away in its way. What you hide seems to be completely nonexistent. But this is a deceptive illusion. What hides itself is still there, that is, by attracting us, whether we notice it immediately or not, or not at all. The promise that inspires us has arrived. If we enter this hidden attraction, then we will be attracted by what is hidden.

But if, as such a fool, we are attracted to ... that thing that attracts us, then our essence is branded, that is, by this "aufdem zugezu". As such a branded person, we point our finger at self-concealment. We are not just us at all, but just what we have pointing to self-concealer. This kind of guidance is our essence. We exist by showing ourselves to the self-concealer. As shown there, man is the exhibitor. Besides, man is not a man at first, and then, maybe occasionally, he is a monitor. More precisely, he is a man, because he is attracted by self-concealment, which leads to this thing and therefore shows concealment. The essence of man is to be such a exhibitor.

According to its most basic mechanism, we call it Zeichen. Since the introduction of self-concealment, then people are a symbol.

But because this logo shows such a self-concealer, this exhibition can't directly show what the self-concealer is here. Visible, this sign is always not functional (Deutung):

In the draft of a hymn, Holderlin wrote:

We are a sign, showing nothing.

We have no pain, in a foreign land

Almost lost the language.

The draft of this hymn by Hodelin is titled "Monniemo Xunie" [12] besides snakes, fairies and miracles. We can translate this Greek word into German, that is: memory, memory (Ged? Chtnis). We use a neutral noun in German: das Ged? Chtnis. But we also say: knowledge, authority; He said: funerals, activities. [13] For example, in Kant's language usage, he used the feminine noun "cognition" and the neutral noun "cognition" almost simultaneously. [14] Therefore, we can reluctantly put the Greek feminine noun μ ν ο σ. ν η translated into German feminine noun: die Ged? Chtnis (memory, memory).

Because Holderlin put the Greek word μ ν ο σ? ν η is named after a Titan [15]. She is the daughter of heaven and earth. As the bride of Zeus, Kuya became the mother of the muse. Drama and dance, songs and poems all belong to the arms of Monniemo Xu Nie. Obviously, this word is different from the psychological ability to grasp the past in appearance. Recall what you have thought about. But as the mother of the muse, "memory" (Ged? Chtnis) don't let go of anything you can think of at will. Memory here is the gathering of thoughts, which are gathered in things that have been thought about before, because they always have to be thought about before other things. Memory collects ideas about things that need to be considered before other things. This kind of gathering in one's own residence, and in one's own residence, is the first thing to miss, in all the indispensable appearances, and what one once promised to oneself as an indispensable thing. Memory, that is, the idea of gathering things to think about, is the source of poetry. Therefore, the essence of poetry lies in thought. Myths (sages) tell us this. The Taoist doctrine of poetry is the oldest Taoist doctrine, not only because it is the oldest in chronology, but also because it is always the most worth thinking about in essence. It is true that as long as we present our thoughts according to the information given by logic, as long as we don't take seriously the fact that all logic has been fixed in a special way of thinking, then we can't notice why poetry is missing.

All poems are rooted in the piety of missing. Under the title of "Monniemo Xu Nie", Holderlin's poem says:

We are a sign, showing nothing. ...

Who Are We? We are the people of today. This "today" has been going on for a long time, and it will continue for a long time. Its length is too long for any kind of historical chronology to provide a scale. In the same hymn "Monniemo Xu Nie", Holderlin said: "Long time no see/this era"-that is, that era, in which we became a symbol without warning. We are a sign, and it is a sign with nothing to show. Isn't that enough to inspire our minds? Perhaps, what Holderlin said in these poems and later poems belongs to the most thoughtful thing to show us ourselves, and belongs to something we haven't thought of yet. However, we haven't decided yet. Is this based on the fact that we are a sign of nothingness and have no pain? Or are we a sign of nothing and no pain, because we haven't thought yet? If the latter point is correct, then, perhaps it is considered to bring pain to mortals first and a Deutung to the symbol (mortals exist as such a symbol). Therefore, such an idea will make us have a dialogue with the poet's poems, and the poet's Taoist theory will always look for its echo in his thoughts. If we dare to bring Holderlin's poetic discourse into the ideological field, we must be cautious. We must equate Holderlin's poetic discourse with what we are thinking without thinking. Poetic speech and ideological speech are by no means the same thing. However, one party and the other party can say the same thing in different ways. Of course, this can only be achieved if the gap between poetry and thought is opened purely and clearly. As long as poetry is often a lofty thought and thought is often a profound poem, the gap between poetry and thought will be opened. Holderlin also knows this. We can know this from two of his poems. The titles of these two poems are:

Socrates and Assibiades

Holy Socrates, why do you always worship?

This young man? Don't you know something greater?

Why are you looking at him,

With love, it's like looking at God?

The second paragraph gives the answer:

People with the deepest thoughts love energy,

Anyone who knows the world knows that youth is paramount.

The wise man has finally arrived.

Always like beautiful things.

The poems related to us are:

People with the deepest thoughts love vitality.

However, in this poem, it is too easy to ignore those words that really have Taoist functions and thus occupy a dominant position. These words with Taoist functions are verbs. If we reread this poem in different ways that ordinary people are not used to, we will hear the verb nature of this poem:

People with the deepest thoughts love vitality.

The closeness of the verbs "thought" and "love" constitutes the center of this poem. [16] From this perspective, the foundation of love is the most profound thing we have thought about. Such a "thought" may come from that memory, and even poetry and all the art accompanying it are based on this memory. But what is "thought"? For example, what is swimming? We have never learned about swimming through a paper about it. As long as we jump into the river, this jump will tell us what swimming is. Only in this way can we understand the elements that swimming must be based on. But what are the elements on which thoughts depend?

If we haven't thought that this assertion is true, it also means that our thoughts have not been particularly implemented in its true element [17] because what needs to be thought about is hidden from us. In this way, we have detained [18] what we didn't think of, so we can't bring it in forcibly from our own point of view, even assuming favorable conditions, that is, we have clearly thought about detaining our three things in advance.

So there is only one thing we can do, and that is to wait until something we can think about promises us. But here, waiting is by no means to say: we have to postpone our thoughts for a while. Waiting here refers to: expecting thinkers who have not been thought about, and expecting thinkers who are still covered by thinkers within the scope of thinkers who have been thought about. Through this kind of waiting, we embarked on a road of thoughtful thinkers. This road may be wrong. But this may be the only way to respond to that thoughtful thing.

However, where on earth should we find something that gives people ideas before everything else? How are the most worrying things presented to us? We have said: In our thoughtful age, the most thoughtful thing is the fact that we haven't thought yet, and we haven't thought in a way that we especially respond to the most thoughtful people. So far, we haven't entered the unique essence of thought [19] so as to stay in it. In this sense, we have not really thought about it [20]. But this just means that we have thoughts, but despite all kinds of logic, we are not particularly familiar with the elements on which thoughts are based. Therefore, we don't even fully know what elements are active when the previous thought becomes an idea. [2 1] Vernehmen is the basic feature of previous thoughts. [22] The conscious ability is called rationality. [23]

What is rational consciousness? What element does consciousness stay in to make an idea happen? Awareness is the Greek translation of νοον], which means: when you find someone present, prefetch it and adopt it as the person present. The discovery of this prefetch is a Vor-stellen. In a simple, extensive and essential sense, we let the people present stand and pose in front of us, just as they stand and pose. [24]

However, among the early Greek thinkers, so far, he has set a yardstick for western thoughts. [25] When discussing thoughts, he never only paid attention to what we call simple thoughts, nor did he pay attention to them first. More precisely, the essence of thought lies in that its essence is always defined from what is perceived as conscious thought, that is, existence in its existence.

Parmenides said (page 34-36 of the eighth line):

ταéτòν δ? σψüνοεyνψοζαüοοοοο|σψν？ ημα.

οé γ? ρ ? νευ τοè ? ντο? ,, ν ? ι πεφατισμ? νον στιν,

└ρ(r)σ└？ ψνοεyν:

Consciousness and consciousness [26] exist for the same thing.

Because there is no existence of it (that is, awareness) as a speaker, you cannot find awareness. [27]

From these words of parmenides, we can clearly see that thought, as consciousness, accepts its essence from the existence of existence. But here, for the Greeks, and then for the whole western thought until today, what is existence? The answer to this simple question, which has never been asked so far, is that the existence of existence means the existence of the present, and the appearance of the present is the appearance of the present. [28] This answer is a leap to the vague situation.

What is perceived as conscious thought is the executor of its current representation. In the representation, thought obtains it as the essence of awareness. In this view, the idea is the way the current player presents (Pr? Sentencing), it puts us in front of the attendees, so it puts us in front of us. Let us stand in front of the attendees and endure this standing within the scope of the attendees. As such a presentation, thought puts the present in its relationship with us and returns it to us. Therefore, presentation is reproduction (Re-pr? Statement). [29] The word representation o [representation] is a popular name later represented. [30]

The basic feature of previous thoughts is Vorstellen. According to ancient thought and theory, this representation was practiced in λ? γο? [logos], the word here means statement and judgment. About ideas, λ? γο? The theory of logos is therefore called logic. When Kant defined the basic behavior of thought (that is, judgment) as the representation of an object, he accepted the traditional recognition of thought as a representation in a simple way (Critique of Pure Reason, A68, B93). For example, if we judge that "this road is a stone road", then in this judgment, the representation of the object (that is, the road) is characterized from it, that is, it is characterized as a stone. [3 1]

The basic feature of thinking is appearance. Realize and expand yourself in appearance. The appearance itself is the appearance. But why is thought based on awareness? Why does awareness unfold itself in appearance? Why is representation a representation?

With a philosophical attitude, there seems to be nothing to ask here at all.

However, the past thought is based on representation, and representation is based on reproduction, which has a long history. Its origin is hidden in an unremarkable event: at the beginning of western history, for the whole process of western history, the existence of existence appeared as it is now (Pr? Senz), at present (Anwesen). Existence is the present existence, which is the beginning of western history-if we don't just show history according to what happened, we should first think about history according to what was passed through history from the beginning to the end.

Being means living in the present. But now, we wake up and notice where our so-called existence leads our thoughts. At this time, the basic feature of existence, that is, presence, becomes mysterious.

Now man is a persistent man. He enters an uncovered state and essentially appears in the uncovered state. Existence only happens where the uncovered state plays a leading role. And now, as long as it enters an open state and lasts, it is now.

So being present includes not only nudity, but also the present. This moment, which plays a leading role in the presence, is a feature of time. But the essence of time can never be grasped through the traditional concept of time.

However, in the existence that appears as presence, just like the essence of present and time, the naked state that plays a dominant role in it is not considered. Perhaps, as Zeitwesen, the naked state is integrated with the present. As long as we are aware of existence in its existence, and as long as we express the object in its objectivity in modern terms, then we are already thinking. [32] In this way, we thought for a long time. But as long as the existence is based on where it is when it appears as the presence state, it is still unthought, then we still haven't really thought about it.