Heidegger: "Heraclitus"
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
HERACLITUS SEMINAR 1966 / 67 Martin Heidegger and Eugen Fink 4 1 11 Translated by Charles H. Seibert THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA PRESS (Jniversily, Alabama ACKNOWLEDGMENTS CONTENTS The translator g^tefully acknowledges permission to quote from copv- nglm-d works as follows: (i) from G. S. Kirk, H.ractuJ; The Cos.ic7Z edited w,th an In.roduaion «. and Ck,mmentary (Cambridge' CaX bndge Un-versuy Press, 1970): (2) from G, S. Kirk and J. E. Raven rl PresocraUc Pktosophers: A Cntical Hutory u,ith a SdecHon of Texts (Cambr dge Translator's Foreword Cambridge Un.yers.ty Press. vu 1957); (3) from Friednch Holderlm: PaeJis fV«^«.«(i translated by Michael Hamburger Preface (Ann Arbor: University oi to the German Edition M,ch,gan PresM966); and Jdii ,4) from AU.ic Poe^. by Friedrich hSi/ n-anslated by Eh^beth Henderson, Mode of Procedure.—Beginning copyright © 1962 by Eli.^beth 1 with Fragment 64 (Correlated Henderson, published by Oswald Wolff (Publishers) Fragments: 41, 1,50,47) Ltd.. London. 3 Hermeneutical 2> Circle.—Relatedness of gv and ndvra (Correlated Fragments: 1, 80, 7, 10. 29, 30, 41, 53, 90, 100, 102, 108, 114) 15 JiavTa-6Xa. jtavta O fivro—Different Exposition of Fragment 7 (Correlated Fragment 67).—jiav kQn^6\ (Fragment 1 ).— 1 Maturation Character of the Seasons (Fragment 1 00) Library 27 of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Heidegger, Martin, 1889-1976. Heracliius Seminar, 1966/67. Translation of Heraklit, which is a summary of the papers from the Heracliius Seminar held at the University The Pioblem of Freiburg 5 of a Speculative Explication.—jiijo i. Br., during the winter semester AeCttoov and 1966-1967. time? (Fragment 30) ^g Heracliius. 1. of Kphesus—Addresses, essays, lectures. I. I-ink, Eugen, joint author. 11. Title B223.H4.113 182'.4 6 nvQ and Jidvra (Correlated 78-27261 Fragments: 30, 124, 66, 76, 31) 61 ISBN 0-8173-6628-8 Difference of Interpretation: Truth of Being (Fragment 16) or Cosmological Perspective (Fragment 64).-Heraclitus and the .'' '^''*, Mat erofTh.nkmg.-The Not-Vet-Metaphysical and the No-Unger-Metaphysical.-Hegel's Relationship to the Greeks.-JiuQog Tpojiat and Dawn. (Correlated Fragments: i^t Translated into English from Herahlit 31, copyright © 1970 by Vittorio Klosterinann Verlag. 71 English translation and addenda Copyrighi © 1979 by The 8 Inntertwitjing of Life University of Alabama Press and Death (Correlated Fragments: 76 36 All rights reserved ^^'"" "* ""'"^"^ ^"'l ^^ods (Correlated Fragments: 62,' 67 88) •J""*'' States of America 8 2 O^^'^'^'J""^'' "l}^'-' TRANSLATOR'S FOREWORD y Immortal: Mortal (Fragment 62).—6v t6 ooqxSv (Correlated Fragments: 32, 90) 97 The fragments of Heraclitus have, from the beginning, attracted and influenced philosophical thinking. It is hoped that this translation will XO The Standing Open of Gods and Humans (Fragment 62). The allow access by English-speaking readers to the "Speculative" in Hegel/—Hegel's Relationship to continuing attempt at interpretation. Heraclitus.— Life - Death (Correlated Fragments: 88, 62) 108 The two principal contributors to these conversations are Martin — Heidegger and Eugen Fink. Of the two. Heidegger is certainly the better XX The "Logical" in Hegel. "Consciousness" and known to English-speaking readers. His readers will find a familiar voice "Dasein."—Locality of Human Beings between Light and Night. here. His interpretation of Heraclitus continues to take its orientation (Correlated Fragments: 26, 10) 122 from the fragments that deal with X6Y05 and with dXTJOeia.' These themes have recurred in Being and Time, Section 44, An Introduction to Metaphysics, What is Called Thinking?, the "Logos {Heraklil, Fragment 50)" J.ft Sleep and Dream—Ambiguity of fijiTeoOai (Correlated and "Aletheia {Heraklit, Fragment 1 6)" essays in Vortrage und Aufsatze, and Nietzsche, II, Section Fragments: 26, 99, 55) 137 IX. In addition to continuing Heidegger's interpre- tation of Heraclitus, the present work is the occasion for interpretation of other thinkers and poets, notably Hegel and Holderlin, as well as self-interpretation by Heidegger. XtJ Reference to Death, Awaiting - Hoping (Correlated Fragments: Fink, the other principal 27, 28). —The "Contraries" and their "Transition" (Correlated Eugen contributor, is less familiar in the Fragments: ill, 126.8,48.51).—Closing Question: The Greeks English-speaking philosophical world. This book is the first translation of Fink's work into English, His role in these conversations as a Challenge 150 is to provide a preliminary interpretation of the fragments that will give the discussion a "basis and a starting place for a critical surpassing or even destruction, and [will enable] us to establish Notes 163 a certain common ground appropriate to inquiring discourse." Throughout the book, the conversations lake their Glossary 166 sustenance from Fink's lead. The pervading theme of interpretation is the relatedness of hi [the Page Guide 171 one] and xa Jidvra [the many]. This relatedness is exemplified in many different instances in the conversations of this book. Moreover, the con- versations as a whole might well be underst«x»d as one more instance of this fundamental theme in Heraclitus' thinking. For, while there is a tension between the multiple interpretations of Heidegger, Fink, and the seminar participants, the interpretation is nonetheless unified at important points of agreement. While it is nut a translator's place to rehearse the details of a text, it may be helpful to alert the reader to passages in which the cnnversants speak foi themselves about their agieements and differences. Regarding the multiplicity of interpretations, it may be worth noting that the present book records conversations, and is not the finished work of a single author. Not only does the conversational origin of the book set It apart from other recent interpretive attempts, it also accounts, at least in part, for the imaginative and experimental character of the in- terpretations. In conversations, we can rarely anticipate the responses of VIII IX with those whom we talk. And if an interlocutor disagrees with us, we are tion. This is perhaps most explicitly shown in the opening considerations often forced to take an imaginative, experimental step into areas about of seminar session five. There Fink indicates that the method of in- which we have not previously thought. What in results the present case is terpretation consists in the attempt to pass from the concrete state of a mixture of premeditated consideration of the text and imaginative, affairs presented in the fragments over to an unsensuous, though not extemporaneous response. Of course, not all the experiments work, as transcendent, domain.^ Again, Fink speaks of the attempt lo com- Fink himself predicts in the opening remarks and affirms at times prehend macrocosmic relations from the microcosmic relations which throughout the text. are directly presented in the fragtnents.^ And finally: Regarding more specific points of disagreement, it may not be acci- dental that cites Heidegger Fragment 1, with its concern for the Xoyog, When 1 speak of thoughtful transposition into another dimension, that is soon after Fink begins his interpretation with a reference to Fragment only a first attempt tocirtumscribe the manner of our pnKcdure. because 64, which deals with xteawv6c; [lightning] and ra JiAvta. But perhaps the we still do not know what it means lo go over into another dimension. Ifwe wish to speak of an analogy in this clearest summary of the differences of interpretation of Heidegger and conneciion, then we must think it in a specific way. In this analogy, only one side is given to us, namely the Fink is elicited by Heidegger from one of the participants in the begin- phenomenal one. As we hold selectively to specific phenomenal structures, ning of the seventh seminar session. In contrast to Fink's "surprising" we translate them into large scale in an adventurous attempi.' and "unusual" beginning, Heidegger makes clear his different begin- ning fiom the X^YOS and from iX^eeia, While the participants record Readers who are familiar with recent English-language scholarship diversity of opinion at many points, perhaps the most general expression and interpretation of Heraclitus may find the speculative method of of difference is the remark that, "More is said in the interpretation of the these conversations injudicious or lacking in caution. Some may object Fragments than stands in them."^ Regarding this difference of opinion, with one of the participants that, "More is said in the interpretation of more is said bek»w. the fragments than stands in them." Or the reader may, with Heideg- The unity that binds the multiplicity of the Heraclitus interpretations ger, regard the speculative treatment as "venturesome" or even is indicated by Heidegger toward the end of the sixth seminar session, "hazardous."'* The more fragmentary the evidence, it might be argued, Hesays,"Bothof us are in agreement that ifwe speak with a thinker, we the more cautious we should be, and the more we must eschew specula- must heed what is unsaid in what is said. The question is only which way tive Rights of imagination. leads to this, and of what kind is the foundation of the interpretive But before dismissing this interpretation just because it is speculative, step."^ This observation marks not only a unifying theme in these conver- we ourselves must be a bit more cautious. Professor Fink goes to some sations, but also a unifying theme in Heidegger's own method of think- lengths to explain how and why he departs speculatively from the spe- ing alx)ut the tradition. As early as Kant and the Problem of Melaphysks cific content of a given fragment. And it may also be argued that, given (1929), Heidegger says: the very nature of these fragments, no interpretation, cautious or uncau- tious, can remain only with what is immediately given in the fragments.