This is the first of a series of commentaries on the works of the latest Heidegger; all of Heidegger's works published by Neske of Pfullingen since 1954 will be presented and interpreted in the series. The expository plan announced in the editor's preface calls for three-part commentaries, with the first part summarizing the work in question, the second presenting glosses of lines or paragraphs as required by their respective importance, and the third giving philological exegesis of texts also (...) as required in the judgment of the editors. The interpretative inspiration is generally traditional, with more emphasis given to themes with echoes in medieval and modern rationalism and in Italian and French ontologism. The editors adopt Heidegger's characteristic attitude in his latter period, his relinquishing of all objective or subjective idealistic presuppositions. Ontology thus becomes the unveiling of the conditions of possibility of Dasein's speech as truth-making. In Being and Time these conditions of possibility were given in the fundamental ontology and reached their existential expression in resolve. In Gelassenheit Dasein has become a mere instrumentality for the ultimate sense of Being to come to pass. The conditions of possibility of the new Dasein are well understood and highlighted by Landolt. Their existential expression is a new temporal tension within the Dasein, that of Warten or attending. If resolve was the modal intentionality of authentic Dasein, attending is the modal intentionality of poetic symbolic Dasein. Landolt does not seem to have been sufficiently critical of the reflective character of this new intentionality. Can it adequately ground essence, fact and freedom? The techniques of this commentary often depart from hermeneutical respect for the text.--A. M. (shrink)

Introduction. The article considers the ontological difference as a fundamental idea dividing M. Heidegger’s ontology into two levels. The author proposes an explication of temporal foundations for the main principle of fundamental ontology, the ontological difference, on the basis of existential analytics of Dasein. It is assumed that the organization of Dasein is a micromodel of being in general, which is the ultimate goal of M. Heidegger’s philosophical work. The aim of the study is to explicate the phenomenon (...) of simultaneity as the ontological basis of the temporality of Dasein as a result of philosophical analysis, Methods The author uses hermeneutic, phenomenological and some general scientific methods such as analysis, synthesis, and abstraction. The scientific novelty of the study. When analyzing the self as an existential center of Dasein the author reveals the ontological duality of the first and, as a consequence, of the entire model of existence. The phenomenon of existence towards death is analyzed in the context of existential gap in the centre of the Dasein self, which gives rise to different ways of Dasein being - genuine and non-genuine; the author considers and analyzes the whole structure of the temporal Dasein in the light of the thesis of the human existence finiteness. On the basis of this idea, the key role of simultaneity is revealed, which becomes the ontologically initial concept in relation to the whole Dasein system of being and, accordingly, the fundamental ontology. It is suggested that the ontological difference is based on the more fundamental principle of temporal synthesis. Results. The author presents a model of Dasein existence structure on the basis of the dual nature of the self, with the simultaneity belonging to the ontologically determining specificity of the organization. Conclusions. The temporal justification of ontological differences reveals a feature of fundamental ontology, which consists in a specifically transformed dialectic of being and nothing. The study shows that fundamental ontology offers an atypical approach to the problem of time. (shrink)

Traditional Chinese commentators rightly see that understanding Zhuangzi's way with words is the presupposition for understanding Zhuangzi at all. They are not sure, however, if Zhuangzi's words are super-effective or pure nonsense. I consider Zhuangzi's experience with language, and then turn to Heidegger's word of being to see if it may throw light on Zhuangzi's way of saying. I argue that a conversation between Heidegger and Zhuangzi on language is possible, but only by expanding Heidegger's notion of (...) Gestell (enframing) and through a destruction of the dominant Confucian discourse that obscures Zhuangzi's way of saying. (shrink)

Heidegger, Varlık sorusu temelinde Batı metafiziğini eleştirirken Varlık’ın bu gelenekte nasıl aşama aşama unutulduğunu göstermekle kalmayıp aynı zamanda Batı metafizik geleneğinin onto-teolojik yapısını da açığa çıkarmaya çalışır. Ona göre Batı metafiziğinin onto-teolojik yapısı içinde Tanrı kavramı metafizik sistemler için kurucu rolü üstlenir. Tanrı kavramına verilen bu rol Causa Sui’dir. Ancak Heidegger’e göre Tanrı Causa sui olarak, ilahi Tanrı’dan uzaklaşmıştır.