Stimme die uns ruft. Heideggers Erörterung der Sprache

Abstract

“Stimme die uns ruft”. Heidegger’s Discussion of Language

The language of philosophy is based on a philosophy of language, which is considered as instrument. The traditional speech of Being and of God, which makes them objects, is also understood as a designation, not a pointing.

Finally, the conventional question about Being moves on its tracks. It takes its starting point from Being, as if it were given without question. Instead, Heidegger poses it in the origin from Being itself.

We were used to relate to Being as the object or condition of the possibility of cognition from the point of view of the I think, instead of understanding ourselves according to our essence from the relation of Being that is valid for us, i. e. our inclusion and call into Being.

Accordingly, the starting point of thinking is, contrary to the occidental tradition, located in Being.

This is especially true for our ability to speak, which has its birthplace in Being and takes its starting point from Being. The necessity of the turn that Heidegger’s question of Being takes becomes more tangible in the direction that language takes towards us. The discussion of language deepens the insight into the locality of our Being, which is indicated by the Da.

In order to first gain this insight, the most important stages of the “Kehre” (Turn) were first recapitulated.

The dynamics of the question of Being, as Heidegger poses it, unfolded at the moment of time flowing into Being as a property. It led to Being as the agent “An-wesen”: “Anwesenlassen” (being present), which approach arises in the realm of time in the sense of a Being that is present to us.

In the speech of Being as given hides a giving that sends its gift. All given is based on the transfer of a structure of Time and Being – their Ongoing in and as there. This Ongoing, however, does not change the fact that in the appropriation the giving itself peculiarly holds on to itself. To its appropriation belongs withdrawal, de-appropriation – and that again as gift of agreeable refusal.

To understand gift and giving only as Ontological Difference assumes a transcendental relation between Being and Being present. Its difference, however, occurs in Being itself. It is the event of this sub-difference in Being that takes place into Being-there, the bridge between giving and giving, and, taking it along, into world.

Like the sub-divide, the decision belongs to the Being about the turning to a most initial, nevertheless most far-reaching, and all distant overtaking, which asserts itself in it: the withdrawn, finally manifesting God for the answer of him and of the human Being. Being matures to this decision, when the in this sense last God makes use of Being as a place of response and man founds his Being as belonging to Being into Being.

Thereby he takes into account that Being needs him according to its essence in order to be. Only in the appropriation of Being as appropriation to man, as well as in the de-appropriation of his Being into the belonging to Being – that man, although present among present, reaches into Being – Being fulfills itself. Only by virtue of this dispossession is man.

Dis-ownership into Being happens in its own way to all Being on the way to its Being. To the human Being belongs the earth, which as his native ground from heaviness and closedness becomes earth only in the open of world, to which it rises. In world the human Being is happening as Being there, as Being in-between to Being present and Being on. World is nothing else than this difference in Being, which gives birth to the world-ending is for everything present, so that it, out of its imagined existence, becomes Being, thing, in which world gathers and happens.

Its de-appropriating world concerns all its four areas in their counterpart: The earth, deprived of planetary presence, as its field; the sky as the open expanse above the closed earth, whose openness does not mean the physical space, but its expropriation for the elevation above the closed earth into the sayability of the world; the human Being, deprived of animalitas, expropriated into Being-there; the God, deprived of Beingness, expropriated for the freedom of the decision about the deprivation of God and human Being in Being.

Expropriating world of the world is world-mountain of the mentioned four into the mystery.

The God, not belonging to the Being, forces it to the human Being for the sake of the disenfranchisement. For its transfer into the Being its “escape” into the self Being is necessary. The condition for this response on the part of the human Being is that he, belonging to Being, and enclosed to Being-there, lets himself be taken into the claim of Being.

Being, so it turns out, is the ground of the response of God and man.

To prove the Being of God as such in his freedom from Being is contradictory. His call is the language or rather its element: its initial, soundless word as the beckoning style.

It wants to find hearing first only as preservation of this silence. It is not possible for the animal because it presupposes an is which forgives the initial word. With the is presented is world. With this gift the Being welcomes the human Being to the incarnation as Being there and to the re–statement of the initial word, the soundless statement of the Being.

Its appropriation is the event of its soundless saga, which echoes in the Being-there as a re–experience, not fabrication, of the is. The inexhaustible mystery of this is stands godfather, wherever human language is formed, in that it is inherent in each of its words.