Philosophic Classics From Plato to Derrida

(Marvins-Underground-K-12) #1

1104 MARTINHEIDEGGER


of things and thus take the whole matter as settled, or whether we are capable of experi-
encing a provocative happening in this recoil of the why-question back upon itself.
But if we do not let ourselves be deceived by the look of things, it will become clear
that this why-question, as a question about beings as such and as a whole, immediately
leads us away from mere toying with words, provided that we still possess enough force of
spirit to make the question truly recoil into its own Why; for the recoil does not, after all,
produce itself on its own. Then we discover that this distinctive why-question has its
ground in a leap by which human beings leap away from all the previous safety of their
Dasein, be it genuine or presumed. The asking of this question happens only in the leap
and as the leap, and otherwise not at all. Later, we will clarify what we mean here by
“leap.” Our questioning is not yet the leap; for that, it must first be transformed; it still
stands, unknowing, in the face of beings. For now, let this comment suffice: the leap


of this questioning attains its own ground by leaping, performs it in leaping
. According to the genuine meaning of the word, we call
such a leap that attains itself as ground by leaping an originary leap : an
attaining-the-ground-by-leaping. Because the question “Why are there beings at all
instead of nothing?” attains the ground for all genuine questioning by leaping and is thus
an originary. leap, we must recognize it as the most originary of questions.
As the broadest and deepest question, it is the most originary, and conversely.
In this threefold sense the question is the first in rank, first in rank in the order of
questioning within that domain which this first question definitively opens up and
grounds, giving it its measure. Our question is the question of all true questions—that
is, of those that pose themselves to themselves—and it is necessarily asked, knowingly
or not, along with every question. No questioning, and consequently no single scientific
“problem” either, understands it self if it does not grasp the question of all questions,
that is, if it does not ask it. We want to be clear about this from the start: it can never be
determined objectively whether anyone is asking—whether we are actually asking this
question, that is, whether we are leaping, or whether we are just mouthing the words.
The question loses its rank at once in the sphere of a human-historical Dasein to whom
questioningas an originary power remains foreign.
For example, anyone for whom the Bible is divine revelation and truth already has
the answer to the question “Why are there beings at all instead of nothing?” before it is
even asked: beings, with the exception of God Himself, are created by Him. God
Himself “is” as the uncreated Creator. One who holds on to such faith as a basis can,
perhaps, emulate and participate in the asking of our question in a certain way, but he
cannot authentically question without giving himself up as a believer, with all the con-
sequences of this step. He can act only “as if”—On the other hand, if such faith does not
continually expose itself to the possibility of unfaith, it is not faith but a convenience. It
becomes an agreement with oneself to adhere in the future to a doctrine as something
that has somehow been handed down. This is neither having faith nor questioning, but
indifference—which can then, perhaps even with keen interest, busy itself with every-
thing, with faith as well as with questioning.
Now by referring to safety in faith as a special way of standing in the truth, we are
not saying that citing the words of the Bible, “In the beginning God created heaven and
earth, etc.” represents an answer to our question. Quite aside from whether this sentence
of the Bible is true or untrue for faith, it can represent no answer at all to our question,
because it has no relation to this question. It has no relation to it, because it simply cannot
come into such a relation. What is really asked in our question is, for faith, foolishness.
Philosophy consists in such foolishness. A “Christian philosophy” is a round square
and a misunderstanding. To be sure, one can thoughtfully question and work through the
Free download pdf