GA65:272 – Mensch - Homem

Para quem concebeu a história do homem como história da essência do homem, a questão quem é o homem não pode significar outra coisa senão a necessidade de questionar o homem para além de sua região de estada metafísica até aqui, apontando de maneira questionadora para outra essência e, com isso, superando essa questão mesma. Esse questionamento se encontra inevitavelmente ainda sob a aparência da “antropologia” e sob o perigo de uma falsa interpretação antropológica.

1. A que pico devemos subir para que possamos visualizar livremente o homem em sua indigência essencial? Ao fato de sua essência ser para ele uma propriedade e, por isso, uma perda, e, em verdade, a partir da essenciação do seer.

Por que tais picos são necessários e ao que eles visam?

2. O homem se desencaminhou de maneira obtusa no que é “apenas” ente ou ele foi impelido a isso pelo seer? Ou será que ele foi simplesmente pendurado pelo seer e entregue a um egoísmo?

(Essas questões movimentam-se na diferenciação entre ser e ente).

3. O homem, o animal pensante, como fonte subsistente das paixões, impulsos, dos estabelecimentos de metas e valorações, dotado de um caráter etc. Esse elemento a qualquer momento constatável, que pode contar seguramente com a concordância de todos, sobretudo quando todos estão de acordo em não perguntar mais e não deixar ser senão aquilo que para cada um é:

a) Como o que nós nos deparamos com o homem.

b) O fato de que nós nos deparemos com ele.

4. O homem é o que retorna no livre lançamento (projeto jogado); nós precisamos compreender ser, quando…

5. O homem, o guardião da verdade do seer (fundação do ser-aí).

6. O homem, nem “sujeito”, nem “objeto” da “história”, mas apenas o ente mobilizado pelo vento da história (acontecimento apropriador) e arrastado concomitantemente para o interior do seer, pertencente ao seer. Clamor da urgência, assunção da responsabilidade em meio à guarda.

7. O homem como o estrangeiro no lance livre expelido, o estrangeiro que não retorna mais do abismo e mantém nessa estrangeiridade a vizinhança longínqua. [GA65PT  :474-475]

Pour celui qui a conçu l’histoire de l’homme comme histoire de la pleine essence de l’homme, la question « qui est l’homme ? » ne peut que signifier la nécessité de questionner l’homme pour le faire sortir de la zone métaphysique où il séjournait jusqu’alors, et par ce questionnement de faire signe en direction d’un autre déploiement de pleine essence – ce qui a pour effet de surmonter du même coup la question. Car inévitablement sur cette question pèsent le soupçon de F« anthropologie   » et le péril de la mésinterprétation anthropologique.

1°) Sur quelle cime faut-il se hisser pour pouvoir surplomber du regard l’être humain dans l’urgence où se trouve sa pleine essence ? Dans le fait que sa pleine essence lui soit proprie-été, autrement dit risque de perte, et à vrai dire de par le déferlement de pleine essence de l’estre.

Pourquoi y a-t-il nécessité de telles cimes, et que signifient-elles ?

2°) Est-ce parce qu’il ne veut en faire qu’à sa tête que l’homme s’est égaré dans le « seulement » étant, ou bien y a-t-il été poussé par l’estre, ou bien encore a-t-il été simplement lâché par l’être et abandonné à son propre entêtement ?

(Ces questions sont agitées dans le cadre de la différence entre être et étant.)

3°) L’homme, l’animal pensant, comme source rencontrable là-devant de toutes les passions, instincts, instaurations de buts et de valeurs, équipé d’un caractère, etc. Ces choses sont à tout moment constatables; elles jouissent de la part de tout un chacun d’un accord unanime, d’autant mieux que tous se sont donné le mot pour ne plus se poser de questions et ne plus tolérer quoi que ce soit d’autre que ce que chacun est lui-même :

a) comme essence (ce qui se rencontre à titre d’être humain),

b) comme existence (le fait que l’on rencontre cela).

4°) L’homme de retour chez soi dans la lancée qui fait lâcher prise (la projection elle-même jetée) ; il faut que nous ayons une entente de l’être si…

5°) L’homme – le veilleur qui garde la vérité de l’estre (fondamentation d’être le là).

6°) L’homme – ni «sujet» ni «objet» de l’«histoire»; il n’est au contraire que celui sur qui passe le souffle de l’histoire (de l’avenance), celui qui s’en voit entraîné jusque dans l’estre, appartenant à l’estre. Être appelé par l’urgent besoin, être remis à la veille et à la garde.

7°) L’homme en tant que horsain endurant jusqu’au bout la lancée qui fait lâcher prise, étranger qui du hors-fond ne revient plus, et dans ce dépaysement garde en mémoire sa lointaine proximité par rapport à l’estre. [GA65FR:556-558]

For the one who has grasped the history of man as history of what is ownmost to man, the question of who man is can only mean the necessity of inquiring man out of his hitherto metaphysical sphere of dwelling and inquiringly referring him into another way of being and thus overcoming this very question. This question still stands unavoidably under the illusion   of "anthropology" and in danger of an anthropological misinterpretation.

1. To what summits must we climb in order freely to have an overview of man in his essential distress? That what is his ownmost is his ownhood and that means loss, and indeed from within the essential swaying of be-ing.

Why are such summits necessary, and what do they mean?

2. Has man willfully lost his way into what is "merely" a being or was he instead repelled by be-ing or was he simply suspended by be-ing and abandoned to self-seeking?

(These questions move within the differentiation of being and beings.)

3. Man, the thinking animal, as extant source of passions, drives, goaland value-settings, fitted out with a character, etc. This is at any time establishable, as what is certain of everyone’s understanding, especially when all have agreed not   to inquire any more and to let nothing else be than that everyone is:

a) as what we encounter man.

b) that we encounter him.

4. Man a one who is returned in the free-throw (thrown projecting-open); we must understand being if….

5. Man the guardian of the truth of be-ing (grounding of Da-sein  ).

6. Man neither "subject" nor "object" of "history," but rather the one blown upon by history (enowning) and pulled along into be-ing, the one belonging to be-ing. Call of needfulness, handed over into guardianship.

7. Man as the stranger in the executed free-throw, who no longer returns from the ab-ground and who in this foreign land keeps the remote neighboring to be-ing. [GA65EM:346]

To someone who has grasped the history of the human being as the history of the essence of this being, the question of who the human being is can only signify the need to question this being outside the sphere of the previous metaphysical residence of humans, to refer the human being to another essence in this questioning, and to overcome thereby the question of who the human being is. This questioning still stands unavoidably in the guise of “anthropology” and is in danger of being misunderstood as anthropology.

What peaks must we scale in order to survey the human being freely in the plight of the essence of this being? The fact that the essence of the human being is to this being a property, i.e., a loss, and indeed out of the essential occurrence of beyng.

Why are such peaks necessary, and what do they mean?

Has the human being obstinately strayed into “mere” beings? Or was the human being therefore rejected by beyng? Then again, was the human being simply forsaken by beyng and abandoned to egotism?

(These questions move within the difference between being and beings.)

The human being, the thinking animal, as objectively present source of passions, drives, aims, valuings, and as endowed with a character, etc. That which can be ascertained at any time and is certain of everyone’s approval, especially if everyone has agreed to question no longer and to let nothing else be except what each is: a) what we encounter the human being as.

b) that we encounter the human being.

The human being the one who has turned back in self-casting loose (i.e., in the thrown projection); we must understand being, if …

The human being the steward of the truth of beyng (grounding of Da-sein  ).

The human being neither the “subject” nor the “object” of “history” but only that which is wafted along by history (the event) and swept up into beyng, that which belongs to beyng. The call of the indigence, consignment to stewardship.

The human being as the stranger who undergoes the casting loose, who no longer returns from the abyssal ground, and who retains the remote proximity to beyng in this foreign realm. [GA65RV]

Wer   die Geschichte   des Menschen als Geschichte des Wesens des Menschen begriffen hat, für den kann die Frage  , wer der Mensch   sei, nur die Notwendigkeit   bedeuten  , den Menschen aus seinem bisherigen metaphysischen Aufenthaltsbezirk heraus zu fragen, fragend in ein anderes Wesen   zu weisen   und damit diese Frage selbst   zu überwinden  . Unvermeidbar steht dieses Fragen noch unter dem Schein   der »Anthropologie« und in der Gefahr   anthropologischer Mißdeutung.

1. Auf   welche Gipfel müssen wir steigen, um den Menschen frei   zu überblicken in seiner Wesens not? Daß   sein Wesen ihm Eigentum   und d. h. Verlust   ist, und zwar aus der Wesung des Seyns.

Warum   sind solche Gipfel nötig, und was meinen sie?

2. Hat der Mensch sich eigensinnig verlaufen in das »nur« Seiende   oder wurde er dafür vom Seyn verstoßen oder wurde er vom Seyn einfach ausgehängt und einer Eigensucht überlassen  ?

(Diese Fragen bewegen sich in der Unterscheidung von Sein und Seiendem.)

5. Der Mensch, das denkende Tier  , als vorhandene Quelle der Leidenschaften, Triebe, Ziel- und Wertsetzungen, ausgestattet mit einem Charakter usf. Dieses jederzeit Feststellbare, das des Einverständnisses aller sicher ist, zumal, wenn alle sich geeinigt haben  , nicht   mehr zu fragen und nichts anderes sein zu   lassen, als jeder ist:

a) als was wir den Menschen antreffen.

b) daß wir ihn antreffen.

4. Der Mensch der im Loswurf (geworfenen Entwurf  ) Zurückgekehrte; wir müssen Sein verstehen  , wenn …

5. Der Mensch der Wächter   der Wahrheit   des Seyns (Gründung   des Da-seins).

6. Der Mensch weder »Subjekt  « noch »Objekt« der »Geschichte«, sondern nur der von der Geschichte (Ereignis  ) Angewehte und in das Seyn Mitgerissene, dem Seyn Zugehörige. Zuruf der Notschaft, Überantwortung   in die Wächterschaft.

7. Der Mensch als der im ausgetragenen Loswurf Fremde, der aus dem Ab-grund nicht mehr zurückkehrt und in dieser Fremde die ferne   Nachbarschaft zum Seyn behält.[GA65:491-492]