Heidegger’s thought coordinates

Accelerate metabolism

Einstein once said that there are only thirty-two people who really understand the theory of relativity, although the writings on relativity are full of enthusiasm. Heidegger’s thought is more difficult to understand than relativity, and lacks a frame of reference. Because the foundation of his thoughts is Aristotle’s thoughts and thoughts, the thought itself, the pure thought, the text itself that the thinking depends on. Conversion. For this kind of conversion, not only the mind does not understand, but also the reflection is not enough. It is necessary to accumulate enough free power to enter the freely reading in Heidegger’s text. Heidegger’s thinking is not only beyond the level of ideology, but also transcends the level of science, and transcends science to become the metaphysical (physical-post-physical) level of science. It directly refers to the original situation of Greek philosophical semantics (the same poetry). Return to the straightforward power of the Greeks to witness. This kind of text can’t be read and evaluated without relying on a particular frame of reference, even if the evaluation is already very high. Such as the famous philosopher E. Levinas believes that Heidegger’s “Existence and Time” is “one of the most beautiful works in the history of philosophy.” He believes that only Plato’s “Federal” can be compared with “existence and time”. Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason”, Hegel’s “Phenomenon of Spirituality” and Bergson’s “Time and Freedom”. This is a very high rating, but it is a wrong evaluation. This is not only because “existence and time” is a fragmented text, but also because the level of thought of these thought texts is completely incomparable.

“Existence and Time” is only one-third of the complete text in the plan. It is a work that Heidegger rushed out under the pressure of pressure and time. It is incomplete in text construction. It is just a Heidegger’s independent thinking. A signal of the text, but also not well thought out in the naming, Heidegger then opened a “Time and Existence” lesson to make up for the shortcomings of “existence and time.” “Existence and Time” just throws out the sprinting Heidegger, but it really marks Heidegger’s two self-selected “Lin Zhong Lu” and “Road Signs” on the road of luck. It is a mistake to put “The Existence and Time” with the works of Plato, Kant, Hegel and Bergson. Strictly speaking, “Existence and Time” is not a philosophical work. It cannot be weighed in the history of philosophy and cannot be compared with philosophical works. “Existence and Time” is a work of deconstructing philosophy. The way of deconstructing philosophy is also non-philosophical, not using philosophy to deconstruct philosophy. “Existence and Time” is the foundation of the buildings (philosophical systems) on the road when thinkers (rather than philosophers) dig their way, exposing them to physical-post-physical (philosophy) Think tradition and limits, and strive to return to thinking itself. Therefore, this work does not belong to the same level of thought as other books, and cannot be compared in parallel and cannot be enumerated in equal terms.

It should be said that the mistakes that Levinas made were not low-level mistakes, but the inevitable mistakes made in metaphysics. It is impossible to truly understand the habitat of Heidegger’s thoughts by using metaphysics as a reference system to dismember Heidegger’s career. For example, R. Weiss, a professor of philosophy at the University of Mainz, is a person who deeply understands the essence of Heidegger’s thoughts. His own ideological career grew up under the nourishment of Heidegger’s thought text, but when he said ” The weight of the name Martin Heidegger is almost correct in the spiritual world. It is almost correct, and perhaps only Aristotle can compare with it. However, putting Heidegger in the “spiritual world” in general, puts the evaluation of Heidegger’s standard on the reference frame of the German Romantic Movement, and the scope of comparison naturally expands. According to this frame of reference, not only Confucius Laozi, Sakyamuni, Christ can be included in the comparison, and Martin Luther, Shakespeare, Beethoven, Herderlin, Rilke can also be shortlisted. This kind of comparison does not strictly follow the standard of the thought itself, and the reason why Heidegger can be compared with it is because his power as a thinker is because his ability to create a text of thought is not because he is of general significance. The philosopher or spiritual leader above, and the word “spirit” itself borrowed from Christianity, is not only inconsistent with, but contrary to, the original intention of Heidegger’s thought to restore Greek thought. It should be said that both Levinas and Weiss are capable of responding to Heidegger at the ideological level. People at this level are establishing a frame of reference for evaluating Heidegger’s thoughts and seriously distorting Heidegger’s thoughts. The pattern, not to mention those who use Heidegger’s words to follow the upsurge. To establish the status, the extent and depth of Heidegger’s thought, we should first clarify the reference system of Heidegger’s text.

Strictly speaking, it is almost impossible to establish a reference frame for Heidegger’s thoughts, because his “thinking career” is the transformation of the text itself that causes the mind to breed, and the transformation of the text itself not only provides an explanation. The conditions are uncertain and the basis for the evaluation is also lost. Thus, the arbitrariness space explaining this event suddenly increased. Some people think that Heidegger is an existentialist and puts him into a particular theory (the person) to evaluate it; some people think that he is the greatest thinker of humanity in the twentieth century, using the century’s staging framework to establish his position; He is said to be one of the greatest philosophers of mankind. He first thought of him as a philosopher and then established his greatness in comparison with other philosophers. Some people think that Heidegger is a “fascist” (Fari Yas), “virtual person” (Adolno), “family changer” (Levitt)… Almost everyone is based on a specific frame of reference, and everyone thinks that Heidegger is his exclusive Heidegger. So what is Heidegger in Heidegger’s mind? This is the key to establishing the Heidegger coordinates.

In November 1974, in order to commemorate Heidegger’s eighty-fifth anniversary, the Goethe-Institut and several universities in the United States jointly held a Heidegger academic seminar in Beirut, the famous Heidegger expert O. Pogler ( Otto P?ggeler) delivered a keynote speech, and Heidegger’s student, Charles Malek, then Lebanese Foreign Minister, personally contributed to the academic discussion. Heidegger sent a congratulatory letter to the seminar. In this letter, he put aside his own unique semantic vocabulary, revealing the essence of his thoughts, concise and concise, and generally reflecting his life base and aims. Allow me to translate the relevant content as follows:

“Technology—the era of industrial civilization hides the danger of thinking little about one’s own roots, and this danger is increasing day by day: poetry, art, and contemplative objects can no longer experience the truth of self-speaking. These areas have been used as support The empty materials that the civilized factories operate. Their original quiet and flowing words disappeared under the expulsion of the information explosion, and they lost their ancient shaping power.

To this end, the emergence of a kind of thinking is absolutely necessary. This kind of thinking is to make the ancient basic questioning more questionable, let these ancient basic questions go through the lost era, and the constant new ground flashes in this storm.
The interpretation of post-physical physics that is influenced by this goal cannot stay in the old senseless debate on the doctrine of God, worldview, and humanism. Instead, it puts the foundation of the ontology of the world of technology-scientific civilization into contemplation. In the horizon.
To this end, in the overall appearance of the technology-scientific civilization, we should first see one point: historically, the modern technology layout that emerged later is not the result of modern science, nor even the application of modern science. According to the words of the matter, it is better to say that modern science has been stipulated by the hidden nature of modern technology. On the one hand, this again shows that there is a unique way in the industrial age. According to this method, it is the dominant role.
In the sense that the rule of existence, including all, is absolutely set, it may be said that the globalization of modern civilization has entered the final stage of the epoch-making existence.

Therefore, it is necessary to first find out its danger according to its origin, and then to see its entire extent. But this requires asking for what is to be asked, and what is being asked is what it is. On the road of thinking, people in the modern era may be brought to this place before the possibility of higher, the possibility that a person cannot be arbitrarily arbitrary, but it is also inseparable from the question of the person who is a gift. The protection of the action.

When theorists eagerly pursue the practice of blind thinking and the enthusiasm for organizations and institutions, the pursuit of the truth of Tolus is itself an action. ”

The content of this letter can be regarded as Heidegger’s summary of his life’s ideological activities, and also the task that really comes to the true thinker. The task structure of this thought and the purity of thought can not be attributed to a certain An era cannot be attributed to a certain kind of doctrine, or even simply called philosophy, but the cultivation of thoughts, such as a farmland of cattle, even if it is re-cultivated by the historical cover and the gardens trampled by various theories. The weight is again vomiting and new. He focused on farming because of his goal of thinking, and he didn’t even look back, let alone evaluate his work. The epitaph he gave himself had only a few simple words: he was born, worked, and left. However, because of the fundamental changes in the world of thoughts, Heidegger’s thought world before his birth was very different from Heidegger’s post-natal world of thought, and it was different for him.

We can sum up the fundamentals of his thoughts from Heidegger’s letter: the technical industrial civilization lacks the scale of thinking, and it is becoming more and more unthinking; the task of thinking is taken from the end of philosophy. Its mission is to restore the autonomy of poetry, art and contemplation, to restore the language of philosophy to the language of poetry. The foundation of poetry, art and contemplation is the pre-philosophy of poetry, the restoration of poetry, art and contemplation. The premise of the truth of the speech is the ability to deconstruct the philosophy; only deconstructing the philosophy can make the ancient basic questioning more questionable, that is, to ask the original in the original attitude and scope, he proposed the “turn” (Kehre) here. The problem is that only the road along the way can return to where it was; returning to the original place is not the goal, but the process of the globalization of the technology-scientific civilization is clearly placed in front of the meditator. Understanding the deep power and serious consequences of this civilization on the foundation of physics philosophy; from the foundation of post-physical philosophy, the globalization of technological civilization is not the result and application of modern science. Modern science is just the externalization of the hidden technological essence (Techne) that the Greeks have pondered. To understand the essence of this externalization, it must go beyond the vision of post-physical philosophy and enter a larger historical scale. Enter a higher possibility, understand the role of Techne’s truss, and explore a set of planetary language adapted to Techne, which has begun after the end of philosophy; theorists who stay at the level of thinking cannot understand these It has far-reaching historical significance and profound destiny, but relies on organizations and institutions to exploit the interests and make a voice. In the context of the blind thinking of the ideological circle, the true thinker makes the real thought manifestation itself a kind of courageous action. The direct goal of this action is to protect the Taoist sayings that are based on the most basic vocabulary. Power is not damaged by mediocrity theory.

Below we discuss the fundamentals of Heidegger’s thought in subsections.

Technology – the lack of thinking in industrial civilization

Heidegger’s thoughts began with the burden of freedom. The range of weights determines the scope of freedom, and on what scale the weight is on which scale to win freedom. Heidegger’s weight-bearing scope is neither academic nor bound by any doctrine, nor is it science or even philosophy. Holding a kind of research attitude can’t understand Heidegger at all, because research is the product of science, and thinking is strict, strictly in the basic factors of thinking, once it leaves the basic factors, thinking will disappear immediately. On the contrary, science is not strict, science is precise, and research is an accurate scientific attitude. Heidegger repeatedly pointed out in the various works such as “What is Metaphysics”, “Introduction to Metaphysics” and “The Age of the Image World”, four methods: the presupposition scheme, the pursuit of rigor, the merits and the support of the work. The interaction and mutual protection of factors constitute the essence of modern science and guide the gradual decline of science into research. It is in this sense that Shanghai Dege repeatedly said that “science does not think.” For example, physics studies space, time, and movement, but what is space, time, and movement? Physics cannot be answered within the scope of its own discipline, and it is answered by means of post-physical regulations. The science of each era has a specific post-physical foundation, and only on this basis can it be studied in such a way, and only in such a study can it be so adapted to the research schedule. The object of the target. In the study, the person has to stand on the position that is described and reflected. Nature, history, society and spirit have become the objects of research, become objects in the scientific presupposition, and make this object into human beings. In the consciousness activity, it forms a counter relationship with the subject in consciousness. Only in this way can it become the object and object of scientific research, and it will have the opportunity to prove its reality.

The objectification of science (worldview) is based on specific post-physics, and only the foundation of post-physical science can show the danger of scientific disbelief. Post-physics is a kind of reflective questioning method, that is, the essential requirements are repeatedly put forward to things, and only according to the nature of specific truths can we make provisions for things. The essence of each truth defines the foundation of an era that can only be based on the foundations that post-physical provides for it. Post-physical basis for this is its special provisions for the person, and the specific concept of truth that is prescribed by such a person. The foundation laid by post-physics completely limits the way in which the characteristics of this era are manifested. To understand exactly the manifestations of the characteristics of this era, it is necessary to clarify the post-physical basis on which it is based.

“…We think about the nature of modern science, the purpose is to identify its post-physical foundation, and see what kind of view of the human being on this foundation and what kind of truth concept makes science fall into research.”

The premise of clarification after physics is that the scale of the operation exceeds the post-physical. In Heidegger’s view, philosophy is and always is post-physics. After the physics is gone, it is actually beyond philosophy. Before Heidegger, people could only enter the door in the post-physical way like a labyrinth, but after Heidegger we have the ability to pass through the entire historical path of post-physical, and post-physical as an object to examine . There are many ways of physics after Heidegger’s questioning. Because of the difference in context, sometimes physics is Platonism. Sometimes, physics refers to the whole person as the truth. Sometimes, after physics is the truth of the person, sometimes the post-physics It is the essence of theory. To sum up, post-physics is the historical process of using the logic of the ban and the truth of the truth by replacing the truth. Therefore, Heidegger also said that the post-physical history is the history of mourning. That is to say, the history of philosophy and the history of science under the history of philosophy are actually a history of mourning, and this sorrow has begun with the emergence of Greek philosophy. Heidegger said that “the globalization of modern civilization has entered the final stage of the epoch-making existence of fate.” This sentence is actually the end of the history of the fall of the Greek philosophy, so it is possible to enter the possibility of higher thinking. . Technology-industrial civilization only radicalizes the lack of thinking. It is thrown out from the beginning of the historical process of the whole post-physics. The opposition to technology-industrial civilization cannot restore the status of thinking, just by exposing science. If you don’t think, you can’t restore your vitality. Only by following the entire history of philosophy can we grasp the demise of sorrow and thought. The true thinker can’t think that after he has mastered the sorrow and the retreat of thinking, he will try his best to restore the self-discipline of thinking.

Heidegger was born in Europe, which was sinking rapidly at that time. At that time, some people advocated returning to Kant to save Europe. Some advocated using the method of returning to the things themselves to save Europe. Others believed that the poems of Tagore should be used to save Europe. Each kind of rescue plan presupposes different levels of thought load. Heidegger’s weight is not a scientific worry, nor a new philosophical system. Instead, it sees the inevitability of sorrow in the history of philosophy. The hopelessness of saving philosophy in philosophy and the illegitimate nature of saving philosophy. His weight is the inevitability of the entire history of Western philosophy and the globalization of modern civilization thrown from the foundation of philosophy. Saving Europe is a saving thought for him. Rescuing thoughts must recognize the history of philosophy as a mourning history. To save thoughts from philosophical damage, one must have the ability to deconstruct philosophy. Only deconstructing philosophy can restore the cause of thinking. It is not the object of thinking again and again.

The emergence of philosophy and the retreat of thought

In Heidegger’s dimension of thought, philosophy is a finite way of thinking. This limited way of thinking is Greek in its origin, and the way we have been asking philosophy so far is still Greek. The so-called philosophy is Greek in its origin. The meaning of this judgment is: philosophy is and always metaphysika. The philosophy of Heidegger’s understanding also always adheres to the original meaning of post-physics, and believes that “post-physics is said to be ‘physical’ in a completely essential sense. That is to say, a kind of cognition of Physis According to this, Heidegger believes that Aristotle’s “Physics” is the most important and incomprehensible work in the history of Western philosophy, and almost no one really understands it. Aristotle’s “Physics” is important because Physika directly passed on Fouss, a kind of cognition of Forsyth. The post-physical (philosophical) ideological dynamics and semantic conditions are also in Forsyth. The great dawn of Heidegger’s Greek philosophy is in the sense of the understanding of Forsyth, rather than the European philosophers in modern times: because of the logo and Mythos, This translation is not appropriate, because Mythos is the first independent text, not the legendary presumps that are separated from the main position of the person, so the transliteration of the sharp opposition makes the philosophy stand out. This view is universal because it is based on a rational philosophical standpoint to look at a prejudice that must arise from the philosophical victory. To avoid this prejudice, we must go beyond the philosophical stance and return to the scale of thinking itself. As Heidegger said:

“Mittos is the law that stipulates the essence of all people and the foundation of all people. This makes the thinking open in the display and is open to the show. Logos (the same thing as Mitos) is the same thing. It is not as the history of traditional philosophy believes, because Mitos and logos oppose each other to make philosophy stand out. On the contrary, it is precisely the early Greek thinkers (Parmenides, Remnant No. 8) that use the same semantics. Mitos and Logos; it was only when either Mitos or Logos could not hold on to its original meaning that Mitos and Logos began to separate and stand up. This happened in Plato. The myth that Mittos was devastated by logos is a prejudice that historicalism and philosophers have inherited from the foundation of Platonism. Similarly, religion has never been destroyed by logic. And just: God retired on his own.”

As Nietzsche pointed out, philosophy is Platonism. If we look at it from a philosophical standpoint, philosophy must appear in the opposition between Mytos and Logos, and eventually Logos defeats Mitos. Platonism is produced in such a way. When you look back on the basis of Platonism, you must come to such a conclusion. The premise of this conclusion has been to replace Mitos with logos, and it is a logical (Logik) sense of logos. The real logos cannot have the problem of replacing Mitos because of logos and secrets. Toth is the same thing.

Whether Logos and Mitos are the same thing depends on whether they think from a standpoint or from a philosophical standpoint. Standing on the standpoint of the pre-philosophical thinking, Hedegel’s conclusion will be drawn: It is not who destroys anyone, but it is only when either Mitos or Logos can’t stick to its original meaning, Mitos and Logos began to separate, and stood up and created philosophy in this tension of opposition, and in this philosophy produced a Platonic tradition of thinking. The withdrawal of Mytos and Logos is actually the withdrawal of thinking, the emergence of thinking; the withdrawal of God, the emergence of religion. Aristotle said that pure thought is simple, it is God, and love wisdom means love simplicity and love God. As long as you talk about philosophy, there will be no real thoughts and gods. As long as you talk about philosophy, thinking and religion will inevitably follow. To truly understand whether the emergence of philosophy is really opposed by logos and Mitos, the key is to understand the conversion of the Greek text to the human language texts that the Greeks experienced.

Fundamentally, philosophy arises from a broad textual translation, that is, from the divine text (Mitto text) to the human text (philosophical text). It is in this large-span translation that neither Mitos nor Logos lost their original meaning, not only that Mitos became a religion, but also that Logos became a logic. Before the theological text is translated into a philosophical text, “Mittos means: the spoken words. The Greeks understand that the words are: publication, let the manifestation, especially the manifestation and display in the manifestation, show its boundaries. It is shown in its appearance. Mittos is playing in its saying: showing its uncle’s law. Mitos precedes everyone’s rules, and fundamentally it is only one in display and It’s the same thing to say in the game. Logos says the same thing.” Heidegger’s judgment was largely applicable until Parmenides and Heraclitus, and they remained largely The identity of Mitos and logos is the state of mind that is displayed. For example, Parmenides believes that it is the same thing, thinking about the same, thinking can’t be separated from it, thinking is in the deep, and it is given by the same scale. Logos is nothing more than collecting and gathering this deep and the same scale of giving.

However, after Aristotle systematically translated the sacred text into a philosophical text, Mitos’s state of giving and display was gone, and the collection of logos became language and logic. Thinking and thinking are all about what is constantly separating objects. “…In the West, people develop ideas about thought into a logic. Logic concentrates on a special knowledge of a particular method of thinking.”

But as Heidegger pointed out on various occasions, the things that “growth”, “physics”, and “ethics” that grew up in the Plato school were all produced in the opportunity of thinking into “philosophy.” And quickly turn philosophy into a science that can be taught. Philosophy has arisen, but thoughts have disappeared. Previous thoughts did not know “logic” or “ethics”, but even “physics”, but their thinking was neither illogical nor ethical, but they did not reach what they had learned. Depth and breadth of thoughts of Forsyth.

I have pointed out many times that Aristotle was the first philosopher of strict meaning, based on the fact that Aristotle systematically completed the translation of the sacred texts in the philosophical texts. In the philosophical translation, not only does Mitos no longer show, but Logos is no longer collected, and Mitos and Logos have lost their original meaning. Aristotle did not oppose Mitos and Logos, nor did one use one to vilify the other, but lost it in the text. From then on, thinking is no longer displayed in Mitos, no longer collected in logos, but in Aristotle’s philosophical text “scientifically” to explain things, no longer maintaining the same scale of thinking. Aristotle completed the translation of the entire text, and left a complete philosophical text for future generations. Later, people learned to interpret and scientifically interpret philosophically, and fundamentally intercepted thoughts, poems, and objects. Self-display. Heidegger repeatedly pointed out that Latin and the modern scientific language based on Latin had a profound and irreparable loss in the translation of Greek, but the Greeks themselves completed the use of philosophical texts to translate the text of the gods more basic. It is not only the premise of the former translation, but also fundamentally stipulates the Western ideological path. Because of this, many people recognize Aristotle as an immortal in the history of philosophy, both positively and negatively.

Aristotle’s immortality is not entirely due to his translation of the sacred text into a philosophical text, nor because he allowed the original intentions of Mitos and Logos to disappear together. His immortality is also because he tried to extract the power of constructing philosophical texts from Fuchs. He does not want to give up thinking, but attempts to make philosophical rules for thinking. The power of this regulation undermines the purity of thought, creates a division within the mind, and also buryes the seeds of modern Western civilization. These pictures have repeatedly appeared in Heidegger’s worries. Heidegger acknowledged that Greek philosophy was a great beginning, and was deeply shocked by this beginning. “We have found out that Greek philosophy is the beginning of Western philosophy, but only when we begin to understand this beginning as the beginning of the beginning. It is sensible; because this and only the beginning of this beginning becomes the ‘starting’ of the descendants, and it becomes like this: the beginning also covers the beginning of the beginning. But the beginning of the beginning of this great beginning, Plato’s philosophy and Aristotle’s philosophy are always great, even though our great influence on the West is still unrecognizable.”

Plato’s philosophy and Aristotle’s philosophy, which began as a philosophical one, concealed the beginning of the beginning, and the real beginning ended at the beginning, that is, philosophy concealed Forsyth. Even the consequences of this cover-up are still great, after all, from the pure display of Forsyth to the philosophical rules and interpretations of Forsyth. The core word of the Mythology text is the self-display of Forsyth, and the core word of the philosophical human text is post-physics.

Philosophical Interpretation of Forsyth

In the proverbal text, Fuchs neither collects nor obscures, but displays, showing himself openly. Heidegger called it the truth, that is, aletheia, and believed that the original meaning of truth is uncovering. It is a self-display of something unrelated to interpretation. The unobstructed nature of truth is difficult to understand because we (people in modern times) can always understand according to the requirements of interpretation, rather than fit in the display of things. Interpretative understanding is actually understood in accordance with the philosophical (post-physical) interpretation. The ambiguity of Forsyth comes from the translation of the divine text to the philosophical text, so there are various statements about Forsyth and Logos, such as logos are mediation, rules, language and so on.

Heidegger did not make a distinction between the text of the gods and the text of the human language (philosophy), but directly placed the fascist on the unconcealed, letting the unconscious display itself, without cover – the philosophical vs. Fuxi The interpretation of Sri Lanka is called the existence of the combination. Heidegger puts Forsyth in the “original” position in the philosophical context. In principle, the philosophical language can’t translate it, so he thinks that philosophy is a kind of damage to thinking. If you use a philosophical language to translate it, you can only translate it with the “existence of existence.” Since Heidegger did not clearly distinguish between the text of the gods and the text of the human language, he was not very effective in discussing this combination. He often exchanged logos and verses in the same position and quoted Herakly. The words of the special dismemberment 80 are quoted as: “…these are separated from each other and are present as an interactive confrontation…” This is quite confusing, not only because the premise of the union is the division, the division The premise is unity, and because what is in what is in the union, where is the separation and cooperation. Due to the ambiguity of the text conversion, Heidegger’s clarification of “combination” did not coincide with the goal of his own thinking, but also stayed in Heraclitus’s statement, or strongly used the logos to say Forsyth, as long as maintenance And the style of staying in it can be opened. In fact, with the withdrawal of the divine text, Logos and Mitos also withdrew, and Fouss, the core word of the divine text, could not keep himself in isolation. Only when Fuchs is unobtrusive, the logos in the sense of gathering and the Mottos who are open to speak have the right to speak.

The existence of the union is in fact an philosophical interpretation of the original Frisian. Under the condition of interpretation of text conversion, it is impossible to maintain its originality, but to transform into a philosophical language, that is, to turn into a physical-post-physical explanation. The combination is the combination of physical and post-physical. Physics is in the state of enumeration. According to Aristotle, how many Kategoria (intuitive) there are, and Aristotle uses Physika (physical) naming to study the existence of enumerated states, enumerating the state The existence is not subject to the progressive progression of species, and each species that exists can return to its own “simple”. Aristotle puts the existence of the automatic separation existence after the existence of the enumerated state behind the physics, that is, the post-physics, and then the physics to discuss what is what. There is a need to use the “yes” to define Forsyth. In the philosophical text, Fuchs, which appears as a combination, is actually a combination of “yes” and “existence.” If God does not have the definition of “yes”, it is meaningless to discuss whether God exists, because God is not enumerating the state, but man is enumerating the state (intuitive), and wood is enumerating the state. But the enumeration state also depends on the class concept. So Aristotle said that postphysics is the first philosophy. There are birth and death problems in the enumeration of the state, there are problems of existence and non-existence, and there are problems of generation and non-existence, such as people can generate people, but the bed can not generate a bed, to generate a bed is also the wood to generate a bed in the figure . Aristotle discussed these issues in detail in his “Physics”, but unfortunately, domestic and foreign thinkers did not pay enough attention to this work.

For those who belong to “yes”, they must be defined and divided. For example, “When a person enters the separation from the person, the person tries to bring the person back, that is, it leads back to the boundary and the limit.” 14] Once boundaries and limits appear in the definition and division, they enter the enumeration state, and they can be classified into categories, and then the class essence appears.

The appearance of the text from the divine text to the philosophical text did not begin with Aristotle, but was completed in Aristotle, that is, he completed the physical-post-physical text structure. As early as Parmenides and Heraclitus, they carried out a philosophical translation of Forsyth, but Barmenid insisted on using “Yes” to translate Forsyth, while Heraclitus insisted on using “existence” to translate Sith. Therefore, in terms of the complete philosophical text, Parmenides and Heraclitus are not philosophers in the strict sense, which led to the static struggle between Parmenides and Heraclitus. In the philosophical text, Forsyth, Forsyth is both static and moving. As “Yes”, it is static and eternal. As “existence”, it moves and changes constantly. This kind of problem is what is caused by text defects and is not of truth value. Aristotle in the philosophical sense of “yes” and “existence”, that “yes” and “existence” are both philosophy, “yes” is the first philosophy, and “existence” is the second philosophy. In this sort of order, the logo of “is” in the division has gained a dominant position, so Aristotle said “any order has the nature of collection.” Heidegger cares about the dawn of the Greeks. Caring about how to be dominated by logos, how does logos become logic, and how the posterity used a logical point of view to obscure the path of the dawn of returning to the Greeks. “The Greeks’ thoughts about thinking have become such a doctrine about logos, and they have become ‘logic’. This can give us some advice. We actually came across, Forsyth and the logic. An original combination of the various sins.” Heidegger freed logos from the stereotypes of intermediaries, languages, and rules with his own free-spirited testimony, restoring the gathering and collection of logos. It has opened the way for the restoration of the original autonomous road, but the background of the transition from the divine text and the philosophical text cannot be considered in the original, and it is impossible to fundamentally clarify the distinction between “yes” and “existence”. Sri Lanka and Logos look at the “primitive combination” of two juxtaposed factors. Heidegger’s ambiguity here has brought sequelae to Chinese scholars who now discuss the issues of “yes” and “existence”.

Heidegger repeatedly reiterated the destruction of Greek thought by Greek philosophy, the destruction of Greek philosophy in the translation of Greek philosophy in the Latin world, the complete destruction of logos in the modern world’s subject and object structure, so he strongly felt “…we I have to know more than ever before and in the era of change before us, that is, in a stricter and more sure way…. Free from simple recovery and uninspired imitation.” The stricter and more secure grasp of the Greek world actually transcends the damage of Greek philosophy to Greek thought, and shows that the original meaning of thinking is.

In, thinking, speaking

The idea before returning to philosophy is to save the fundamental path of the Western ideology as the unfolding physics-post-physical, and to make the ancient questioning more questionable. This is the most important thing in Heidegger’s thinking. Let the original thinking, make the original thoughts open to the language, and make the language become the original home in the creation of speech, in this family inhabited the protection of the original vocabulary by which to express their basic vocabulary People who are not harmed by mediocrity (poetry, art, contemplation). This is the foundation of Heidegger as a thinker. This foundation has gone beyond the physical-post-physical horizons and into a creation that is not a repetition and imitation of Greek thinking.

The “Sein”, “Denken” and “Sagen” in Heidegger’s vocabulary belong to what he calls “the most basic vocabulary”. These vocabulary can only appear in the pre-philosophical sense. In his vocabulary, “being” is always the original meaning in the sense of Forsyth, does not produce the difference between “yes” and “existence”, is a kind of forest-like gathering of ideas and things. . In order to distinguish it from the existence of the physics-post-physical physics, he later wrote Sein as the ancient font Seyn, sometimes by means of a cross. Sein, which appears in the physical-post-physical text, can be translated as “yes” in general, and Seyn, which appears in the original sense, can be translated as “at” in Chinese. Heidegger’s “thinking” is the pure thought of thought and thought itself. His student, Ms. Arendt, accurately pointed out that “Heidegger never transports ‘thinking’ about what, but lets think Thinking into it.” This distinguishes the object of thinking from the object of thinking. In the philosophical text of the person, you can talk about the object, the thinking, the subject, and the object, which are non-thinking things. But in the thinking of the thinker, thinking is dawning, like a broken chicken, broken as a limit. The shell surrounded by the thoughts, returning to the original dawn of thinking, truly fits in the openness of the original. This kind of thinking, apart from opening the truth, has no other mission, so it is pure. Aristotle said that this is a purely free thought, and Plato says it is a silent self-distribution. This kind of thinking is not philosophical thinking, and it is refusal to interpret philosophically. Heidegger’s “speech” is naturally a bloom, an open statement, a language, a language, and a “person” and a “object” in this statement and speech, so he quoted He. Derlin’s poem says: “The word is broken, nothing is.” To say that the open object, the words let people think, say that the object is in the state of letting, the state of freedom (the playing field) is open. The truth is the open state of freedom. The power of free speech that allows language to speak and maintain the most basic vocabulary is always the basic task that thinker Heidegger puts forward. Therefore, the original unconcealed, purely unconceived, unspeakable speech is the same thing for Heidegger, just from which angle the problem is cut into, there is no early Heidegger, medium-term Heidegger and Late Heidegger’s problem. Heidegger, who is always at the same height, restores and maintains the same promise of thinking, words, and words before philosophy. Being unconstrained is the openness of freedom, not busy obscuring and uncovering. Existence, thinking and language in philosophical texts Returning to obscuration and uncovering, the thinking of thinking, thinking, and speaking is an unobtrusive display; existence, thinking, and language have objectified understanding and interpretation problems, but thinking, words, and words bring us into their dwellings. Gather in the dawn of the event, instead of imposing the intentions of the subjective “human” on them, obscuring them, and deconstructing them. In short, limiting Heidegger to philosophers cannot grasp Heidegger’s degree of thinking.
In view of Heidegger’s deep misunderstanding, he pointed out: “In our era, which is in urgent need of thinking, the most urgent thing to think about is that we have not yet thought about it.” Nothing is because people have not yet become a society. The original person (Dasein), who can only think philosophically and scientifically without thinking, can only cover the thought in the name of thinking. The withdrawal from modern subjectivity and the withdrawal from philosophy are the preconditions for restoring the idea of ​​self-determination. Only by withdrawing from the source of philosophy and fully grasping the essence of philosophy can we understand the piousness that we think of ourselves, and then we can consciously accept the mission of receiving thoughts, and the talents become the guardians of the original and become the ones who listen to the original. “Because the listeners are subject to the original requirements and regulations, let the person enter the dawn of the event and spread out with the incident. This dawning and the emergence of the presenter brings out such a person who appears. That is to say, in the self-exposed of the appearance of the exhibitor, the talent becomes the listener of the appearance. The person is not the person who puts it into a certain viewpoint, and the person is not the subjective perception. In the sense of the meaning of the person in the sense. The person is set by the person, the person who is self-exposed to bring the person out of the field, gathered in the person, is set by the person, wrapped and held in the openness of the person In the confrontation of the person, the stalemate is in the confrontation of the person, and is covered by the extension of the person: this is the essence of the person of the great Greek era. Therefore, in order to satisfy the essence of this person, person Must also gather and save on their own In the openness, accept and maintain his openness, and always keep the rejection of all fission murmurs. The Greeks are listening to the original being, which is why the Greek world cannot be imaged.”

The original power of the Greek world before philosophy can not be imaged is why Heidegger is eager for it, and why he always remains devout and awe. The more he feels the danger of Western scientific civilization since modern times, the more he is devout and awe-inspiring to the Greek world before philosophy, the more he increases his motivation to return to the original dawn of thinking, thinking, and speaking. Increasing his worries about the technical truss, the more he increases his questioning why at the beginning of Greek philosophy, the “being is” rather than the person, why is it not, why is the physics of the person – post-physical thought dominates the West The essence of man, why not “nothing” to protect the peace of pure thought. Therefore, let the original appearance, let the thought show in the dawn of the real thing, let the language really enter the speech, not let the “person” stipulate the language, but in the language of the words to bring out the people’s regulations, it becomes Heidegger The sharp and consistent goal of the gradual extension and tempering of thoughts, in order to achieve the ancient questioning is more questionable.

Under the enthusiasm of such pious objects, Heidegger not only ploughed the background of the words of Mitos, Logos, and Forsyth, causing them to fall off the philosophical coverage, and involved Nietzsche and Hercules with high intensity. Derrick, Trakl and Rilke’s poetry, and try to seek an overall breakthrough in the physical-post-physical language under the reference of Oriental words, especially Chinese classical rhyme. Heidegger spent more than twenty years (from the mid-1930s to the end of the 1950s) breaking through the linguistic framework of physics-post-physical, in order to restore the original-sense-speech identity, his thoughts and language With the power of text, it is the sameness that he struggles to open. The key to mastering this identity is to get rid of the entanglement of philosophical discourse and get rid of human subjectivity. It is understandable to lead the existence-thinking-language from people, but it is not possible to lead the original-thinking from the people, but to accept the original deportation and enter the state of reconciliation in the original deportation. I can only ask the things that have been thought, the things that have already arrived. Only when the words in the thoughts can be broken, the thoughts are on the way of language, the language begins to speak, and the language of speech is the creation of poetry. Simple solemnity, and can live in this kind of surprise, nourish and protect the original power of the words. When Heidegger talks about language, it is not defining “what is language”, not philosophical definition, but let language enter speech, “remembering language, we need to enter the language, for the language, that is to say In his speech, he stayed in her speech instead of traveling in our words. Only then can we reach his field, whether lucky or unfortunate, only when it reaches this field, the language reveals it to us from this field. Essence. We don’t want to lay a foundation for language beyond the language itself, and we don’t want to use language to explain things beyond the language.”

If we can’t understand Heidegger only in our field, not in the field of language, we can’t understand the essence of language. We say that language makes things to say, not what the subjectivity thinks. We speak for the language and even dominate the language. This is also true when talking about the original and thinking.

The Greeks before the philosophy did not define what human beings were, and did not even define who the people were. The people in the thoughts were those who were arrogant and arrogant, and those who were soaring and vigorous, opened to the plan of thinking about poetry. This openness is itself a poetry in the sense of creation. Heidegger also said that pure language is the creation of poetry. Once the “creation of poetry” is extinguished, the words are broken, and the objects cannot be displayed. The person who appeared as a symbol in the opening of the words becomes the master of the broken language. It is the existence of the definition, and the thinking becomes the thinking. Words become words. The entire history of Western philosophy is the original history of the fall. Heidegger tries to restore the original-sense-speech identity. In fact, it is the self-discipline of deconstructing the history of Western philosophy and restoring poetry, art, and contemplation. The textual power of Heidegger’s thought is mainly displayed on the road of this kind of autonomous Tao.

Leap in front of thinking

Phenomenology can’t explain Heidegger, existentialism can’t explain him, and even philosophy itself can’t explain him. He is not an academic subject, and research does not work for him. As he said in his previous letter, it is impossible to make the ancient basic questioning more questionable. It can’t stay in the old senseless debate about God’s doctrine, worldview and humanism, but on the things that face thinking. There is something in the eyes of the thinker, and there is something in the heart. For the thinker, thinking about the ancients, just lacking enough piety and deepness can not be the door. Understanding Heidegger must first go beyond the modern subjectivity and beyond the philosophy itself. It is necessary to grasp the textuality of Heidegger’s thought. He is not a thinker in the general sense, but a pioneer of the text of thinking. Aristotle appeared in the translation of the divine text into the philosophical text. As long as it is evaluated in philosophy, Aristotle is immortal. Heidegger appeared in the translation of philosophical texts into technical framework texts. Heidegger’s stipulations on the technical framework language were far less successful than Aristotle’s philosophical philosophies, but he showed up when constructing texts. The extent of thinking is far beyond Aristotle. Aristotle is a pure philosopher, Heidegger is a pure thinker, and witnessed the throwing of the depths of history with a higher possibility of thinking. I can’t tell whether he finished the throwing. To throw, but he is an eyewitness, this is the truth. If the thinker is thinking, there is no coordinate at all. If the coordinates of a certain understanding are not acceptable, it can only be said that he is not only a straddle of the philosophical text, but also a resurrection of the thinking text and a groping of the technical frame text. The textual thinker resurrected the power of thinking, and Heidegger’s charm lies in the power of shaping in his thoughts. The text of Heidegger’s movements is naturally involved in the creation of thought. People can study philosophy from many people, but only in Heidegger can people understand what is true.

You may also like