Heidegger, “Der deutsche Idealismus (Fichte, Schelling, Hegel) und die philosophische Problemlage der Gegenwart (Summer semester 1929)”

Introduction

The Present Situations of Problems

§ 1. The Determination on the Task of the Lecture

By the theme, the task is clearly posited: a historical statement about the German Idealism and then, following on, a description of what will be pursued in our philosophy today.

Of course, you have already replied: the task cannot be externally conceived. It depends naturally on the comparison. A comparative observation: differences, similarities, not only in the philosophical doctrines, but naturally on the situation of the history of ideas and the mental stance and attitude.

Well, yes: this comparative contemplation is not bare registration and assessment, as if this would be two different objects. One of comparative object is us, we, the present people. What the comparison reveals has its consequence for us. It must allow itself to be assessed by a different object of comparison, how it stands with us, how far we have brought it to. And growth only where planting, and planting only from germinating, indeed seedling, which are carrying the hidden power. Do we have these to plant, and do we know the ground, in which we can lay them in?

But doesn’t this remain perhaps an attractive, yet all too aesthetic task, by which we are taking ourselves way too importantly in our situation in the history of ideas? Doesn’t all that end by a psychology of our present day and perhaps in its inability and its helplessness? Does this fade away, as a result, that we a comparatively creates its psychology? Or would it be become only more uncanny? In the end, that couldn’t do any hurt if it does not stay that way. Or what other things should this comparative approach give away?

Only this would be a real and lively task; Not the boring reporting of what these philosophers have written earlier, which journals they founded and with whom they were married to, but their philosophy itself, and namely what it says to us in itself.

And so, you would be safer from being annoyed by the book title or details. On the contrary, opposite to many other subject matters that there is to tackle within the sciences, finally, once, there are something for the mind. And for the lecturer: is there a more comfortable task like this, to talk about recently published books that appears superior and then draw comparisons – with Hegel and Schelling, with whom certain similarities should still exist today?

And, thus, must that for both parts become – how people sometimes hear – a beautiful lecture.

Or which other tasks should we think of by the indicated theme? Eventually, the adverse one is completely certain: no antiquarian reporting. Not even the nonsense of a poorly imitated intellectual-historical observation. But what then?

But that is neither a sufficient ground for disregarding nor an instruction on what we should now do favorably. Thinking of something new? It would be more disastrous and dreadful than the old one, because something like that allow itself to be conceived not as a program. What internal authenticity and an immediate, undesirable effect, should be able to have, must be grown. And growth only where planting, and planting only from germinating, and indeed seedling, which are suffused with the hidden power. Do we have these to plant, and do we know the ground, in which we can lay them in? Do we really have a task? Who would still presume to say “yeah” on these questions today. But still we have, I say “still” – “how long”, the decision stands only on you -, still have we the possibility to search for the sprout and the soil, for real tasks. Find it – and by doing so bring all of us to a sober passion of questioning and being under no illusions.

If the indicated theme of the lecture includes a genuine task, how should we proceed into it and how is it to be determined? Not to come up with something fancy, only to make it difficult than other ones, but thinking through the most obvious thing of the task!

And the most obvious thing is, what we already mentioned: a comparative approach – namely that the present day stays not only as a comparative object but become the subject which will be commented on.

So, we ask, what German Idealism have said to us. But that implies that we are clarifying what it says altogether. Now, this stands in the great works, which have not merely been received by us as the fragments of ancient philosophy. And works that shows us not this or that doctrine, not this or that problem just as a platonic dialogue or a treatise of Aristotle would, but shows us the totality of philosophy, the system.

Certainly, they stand in the works. But how should these approach us, while they do not speak for themselves? How should we take bring them up?  Through reading! Can we still read? Have we still got the inner force and willingness to let something speak to us? Do we still know, what above all belongs to this willingness, that it does not stay as an empty and unfulfilled one?

And what it that, what belongs to it? We must, from the start, attempt to handle what is being said there, what is being grown, or rather, we must make use of this growth. We must still listen to the direction, in which the philosopher speaks, we must still keep the perspective open, within which he says to us.