Leo Strauss: ''Existentialism'' [1956]; "The Problem of Sokrates" [1970]

Two Lectures by Leo Strauss

DAVIDBOLOTIN St. John's College, Santa Fe

CHRISTOPHER BRUELL Boston College

THOMAS L. PANGLE University of Toronto

The following two lectures are the first of a number of lectures by the late Leo Strauss which Interpretation has undertaken to publish. The editors of these lectures for Interpretation have been able to obtain copies or transcripts from various sources: none of the lectures was edited by Professor Strauss for the purposes of publication nor even left behind by him among his papers in a state that would have suggested a wish on his part that it be published posthumously. In order to underline this fact, the editors have decided to present the lectures as they have found them, with the bare minimum of editorial changes. These lectures have all been published once before, at least in part, but in a more heavily edited form intended to make them more accessible to a wider audience (The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism: An Introduction to the Thought of Leo Strauss, edited by Thomas L. Pangle [Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 19891). The University of Chicago Press, which holds the copyright on the materials and which retains the copyright on them in the version now to be published, has generously given its permission for their republication in Interpretation, as has Professor Joseph Cropsey, Leo Strauss's literary executor. A notice will be attached to each lecture indicating the state in which the manuscript or transcription was found; and a list will be appended to some of the lectures calling attention to divergences from the previously published version.

INTERPRETATION,

Spring 1995, Vol. 22, No. 3

302

Interpretation

The first of these two lectures,

Strauss fourteen

They

are,

"Existentialism,"

was

years earlier than the second one,

however,

related to one another

stand and to respond to the thought

Strauss's we

know,

by

have accordingly

"The problem of

of Heidegger. Indeed, they

chosen

by

Professor

Socrates."

their common concern to under

most extensive public statements about and we

delivered

Heidegger,

to present them

at

here

are

least

Professor so

far

together.

as

Existentialism Leo Strauss

According to Dr. Victor Gourevitch, whose own lecture on Existentialism is referred to by Professor Strauss in the text, this lecture was delivered in Febru ary, 1956, at the Hillel Foundation of the University of Chicago. The lecture was available to the editors

tions,

while

indicating

Professor Strauss merely

where

can

of Chicago. We have

University

in the text,

version

a

Professor Strauss's revisions,

with

chives at the

copy of a typescript with additions, correc Professor Strauss's own hand. The original of this

by

and alterations

typescript,

in

in

only the

corrected version.

Wiebke Meier for

rich and

Strauss

We have

ar

However,

typographical mistake, or where we

of punctuation,

also taken the

comment, a few misspellings in the typescript. We

without

the

notes what the revisions were.

corrected a

added a comma or made other small changes sented

be found in

chosen to present the revised

help

their most generous

in

liberty

have

he

pre

of correcting,

are grateful

deciphering

to

Hein

Professor

Strauss's handwriting. A

more

heavily

edited version

differs, in part, from been

having

lecture, based

of this

on a typescript that

the one we used, and on a copy that gives no indication of

by

Professor Strauss,

previously published, under the title "An Introduction to Heideggerian Existentialism, in The Rebirth of Clas seen

was

"

sical

Political Rationalism: An Introduction to the Thought

cago: pp.

University

of Chicago Press, 1989

2746. We have

in

noted

important divergences between

This should

series of

help

lectures

with

1989

by

The

of

Leo Strauss (Chi

University

an epilogue what appear to us to

of Chicago]), be the most

the earlier version and the present one.

the perplexities

a reminder of

the Jewish students in

the modem Jew

[

particular

towards

somewhat greater clarity.

facing

of modem man

the perplexities of

Existentialism has

reminded

many thinking is incomplete and defective if the thinking being, the triinking individual, forgets himself as what he is. It is the old Socratic warn ing. Compare1 Theodorus in the Theaetetus, the purely theoretic, purely objec people

tive

that

loses himself completely in the contemplation of mathematical knows nothing about himself and his fellow men, in particular

man who

objects, about

who

his

own

defects. The

thinking2

The3

observer, for instance. swered by science, for this

1995

by

The

University

interpretation,

Spring

of

man

is

not a pure

question what am would

mean

Chicago. All rights

1995, Vol. 22, No. 3

I,

mind, a

or who am

that there are some

reserved.

pointer-reading cannot be an

I

self-forgetting

304

Interpretation

Theodoruses

have

who

gotten

hold

of the

limits

of the

human

soul

by

means of

For if they have not done so, if their results are necessarily provisional, hypothetical, it is barely possible that what we can find out by scientific method.

ourselves and our situation

examining

tence of scientific

knowledge, is

'Existentialism is

a

ment

like

and

overriding

to a single

in

about such a radical change

Germany, in

thought in

Anglo-Saxony. I

This is

man:

deceptive.5

The

is

like

not

owes

alone

as a

is revolutionizing

all

to affect even

beginning

young Ph.D. in 1922.

its

brought

this effect. I remember the impression

by

I heard him first

and

is

Existentialism

thought as

Europe,

continental

name

a nameless move

Heidegger. Heidegger

philosophic

am not surprised

made on me when

science.

thought.

Thomism. Existentialism is

pragmatism or positivism. significance

the pride and the pre

without

helpful than

of philosophic

school

Platonism, Epicureanism,

more

honestly,

Up

he

to that time I

had been particularly impressed, as many of my contemporaries in Germany Weber's6 intransigent devotion to intellectual hon were, by Max Weber, by esty,

his

by

passionate

devotion to the idea

way north from Freiburg Main Franz Rosenzweig

formed

where

whose

people speak about

child

in

before

philosophic

name will

Heidegger,

always

and

be

I told him

Weber

in Frankfurt

saw

remembered

appeared

no

seriousness, profundity,

Charity

our own

compels me

was

eyes

Hegel. He

in

of

Heidegger. I

to

me as an orphan

said

and concentration

in the interpretation

of

texts. I had heard Heidegger's interpretation of certain sections in

comparison.

Heidegger

am

when

Aristotle. Sometime later I heard Werner Jaeger in Berlin interpret the texts.

was

to precision, and probing, and competence. I had never seen

regard

such

devotion that

a

science,

Heidegger then taught, I

Existentialism,

to him: in comparison with

of

regarding the meaning of science. On my

combined with a profound uneasiness

to

Gradually

limit the

the breadth of the

preparing dawned upon that there had been no in

remark7

comparison to the

revolution

me and

my

of

thought

generation.

such phenomenon

time in

same

that there was

We

in the

which

saw with

world

since

very dethroning philosophy in Germany. There was a famous discussion between Heidegger and Ernst Cassirer in Davos which revealed the lostness and emptiness of this succeeded

a

short

the

established schools

of

philosophy to everyone Hermann Cohen, the founder of the

remarkable representative of established academic

who

had

neo-

eyes.

Kantian

Cassirer had been

school.8

was ethics.

a pupil of

Cohen had

elaborated a system of

Cassirer had transformed Cohen's

philosophy whose center into a new system of

system

philosophy in which ethics had completely disappeared: it had been silently dropped: he had not faced the problem. Heidegger did face the problem. He declared that

ethics

awareness that this most

pher

is impossible fact

opens

and

his

an abyss.

whole

being

was permeated

up I would say the outstanding German philosopher was Edmund Husserl. It was Heidegger's critique

enology

which

by

the

Prior to Heidegger's emergence the

became decisive: precisely because that

only5

of

German

Husserl's

philoso

phenom

criticism consisted

in

a

305

Existentialism Husserl's

radicalization of

to

once said

me who

had been trained

the

mistake of

Marburg

in9

Marburg

the

to all other German

neo-Kantians were superior made

Briefly,

own question and questioning.

beginning

with

neo-Kantianism was the

Husserl

as8

the10

neo-Kantian

school,

schools, but

philosophical

they

the roof. He meant: the primary theme of

analysis

But science, Husserl

of science.

from our primary knowledge of the world of things; sci taught, is derivative ence is not the perfection of man's understanding of the world, but a specific modification

that pre-scientific

of

understanding is

science out of pre-scientific

the

philosophical

first

understanding

place the analysis of the

Husserl

himself5

began

understanding. a

meaningful genesis

of

problem; the primary theme is

of the pre-scientific world and therefore

sensibly

perceived

According

thing.

the roof: the merely

with

The

sensibly

in the

to Heidegger

perceived

thing is

itself derivative; there are not first sensibly perceived things and thereafter the same things in a state of being valued or in a state of affecting us. Our primary understanding of the world is not an understanding of things as objects but indicated" what the Greeks by pragmata, things which we handle and

of

use.12

The horizon

derstanding

analyzed

the world of pre-scientific un

was the pure consciousness as the absolute being. Heidegger ques

tioned that orientation

the

Husserl had

within which

by

referring to the fact that the inner time belonging to be understood if one abstracts from the fact that

pure consciousness cannot

this time is necessarily finite and even constituted same effect which

Heidegger had in the late twenties

many, he had very

soon

in

continental

existence a philosophic position apart

All

or refined.

rational13

liberal

Europe

from

by

mortality.

man's

and

as a whole.

early thirties in Ger There is no longer in Marxism

neo-Thomism and

philosophic

have lost their

positions

The

crude

signifi

One may deplore this but I for one cannot bring myself to be8 inadequate. I philosophic positions which have been shown to to clinging great effort in order to find a solid shall have to make a afraid that we very cance and power.

am14

basis for

rational

liberalism.

is the

tual plight. But here

Only great

a great

thinker could

trouble, the only

help

great

in

us

our

intellec

thinker in our time

is

Heidegger.

The only ger's

importance

question of

teaching is true

or not.

of course

But the very

silent about the question of competence

haps only

of who

is

question whether

made a

distinction between

Heideg

is deceptive because it is competent

thinkers are really competent to judge

great Kant16

thinkers.

is the

question

of5

to judge. Per

the thought of great those

philosophers and

for

whom

philosophy is identical with the history of philosophy. He made a distinction, in other words, between the thinker and the scholar. I know that I am only a scholar.

But I know

mostly,

at

great

thinkers,

authority.

to

best, The

our sight

in,

also

scholars.

that

The

of men who

us

scholar

faced the

that call themselves philosophers are

is radically dependent problems without

is cautious, methodic, inaccessible heights and

scholar

to

most people

not

on

being

bold. He does

mists as

the work of the

covered"

not

by any become lost

the great thinkers do. Yet

306

Interpretation

while

the great thinkers are so bold

they

are;

the

We

see pitfalls where we are sure of our ground.

live in

scholars

a

circle, light-living like the Homeric gods, protected against the prob the great thinkers. The scholar becomes possible through the fact that

charmed

lems

are also much more cautious than we

they

by

great

thinkers disagree. Their disagreement

reason about

for wondering

their differences

creates a

which of

possibility for

them is

more

us

to

likely

to

be right. We may think that the possible alternatives are exhausted by the great thinkers of the past. We may try to classify their doctrines and make a kind of herbarium

and think

in 2200 in Burma

ture

provided out

that we look over them from a vantage point. But we

the possibility that

cannot exclude

for

by

the limits of human the little we

about

The

scholar

books. If he is great thinker

the

our schemata.

For

possibilities?19

thought

of whose

In brief,

has in

way been found

no

to believe that we have

who are we

we are occupied with

reasoning

the great thinkers have said.

understand oP what

faces the fundamental

intermediacy

through the

problems

a serious man through the

faces the

thinkers might arise in the fu

other great

character18

intermediacy

of

the great books. The

of

directly.

problems

I apply this to my situation in regard to Heidegger. A famous psychologist I in Europe, an old man, told me that in his view it is not yet possible to

saw

form work. a

judgment

a

Because this

in

significance

work changed

a most general

the intellectual

There is

way22

this

what

The

work means.

a not altogether unrespectable

Nazi in 1933. This

a

part of a man who

lived

Everyone

read

the trees

of

orientation so

Heidegger is aiming at the more I see how much stupid thing I could do would be to close my eyes became

the truth

as

as well

Heidegger's

radically21

time is needed in order to understand with even tolerable

long long

and

the

about

who

had

could see

the

was not

due to

his first

great

book

kinship

in temper

I

or

to reject his

doing

a mere error of

above the

did

and

and

understand what

still escapes me.

justification for

heights high

on great

more

that

adequacy The

work.

so.

Heidegger

judgment

lowland23

not overlook

most

the

on

of politics.

the wood for

direction between Heidegger's

thought and the Nazis. What was the practical, that is to say serious meaning of

the contempt for the

work24

rector of which

the

of

University not yet

his writings,

recent publications.

in

which

ment. rected.

he

In the The

of

Freiburg

Nietzsche.

dared to

Yet8

in

of

Nietzsche,

kinship

that speech

from time to time he

published a

the greatness and

in

movement?

in 1933 he delivered

mention

195325

preface written

an undeniable

praise of resoluteness which permeated

When Heidegger

195325

dignity he

Heidegger

reminds

naturally,

would not

in the on

in

Germany.

otherwise complete

the book jackets

book, lectures

of

was

an official speech

the movement which then swept

with

which appear

spoke of

case

the

to encourage that extremist

he identified himself

Heidegger has list

reasonableness and

except

of

his

in 1935, the National Socialist move

said that all mistakes

given

had been

cor

to a certain extent of the case of

have

sided with

between Nietzsche's thought

and

Hitler. Yet there is

fascism. If

one rejects

307

Existentialism as

democracy

well as

be

will

Nietzsche

as

passionately

with

a27

did26

view

much more effective

the conservative constitutional monarchy as

to a new aristocracy, the passion of the denials

than the necessarily

character of the new nobility.

To28

political action against such things

It is

not even

intimations

more subtle

of

the

his29

blond beast. Passionate say nothing of is absolutely in order but it is not sufficient. Are there no dangers threatening democracy

politically sufficient. not only from without but from within as well? Is there no problem of democ racy, of industrial mass democracy? The official high priests of democracy with their

amiable reasonableness were not reasonable enough

the decline of

situation:

heritage

is

which

Mediterranean

at

believe that the U.N. And30

within

commercials

as great and even greater

civilization

around

organization

democracy: it logical

and5

have indeed the

described the

is

of

our

than that which threatened

the Christian

an answer even

positivism with

chambers, but is the absence once

300

era.

to the

suffices to mention the name of

merit of not

for

the danger to the west, to the whole western

Europe,

least

to prepare us

sending of

It is

political problem. 31

France

and5

their indescribable vulgarity.

into

men

to

childish

the

They

concentration camps and gas

these unspeakable evils sufficient? Nietzsche

had been

change which

in the

effected

half

second

of

the

follows.32 The reading of the morn century in continental Europe as prayer had been replaced by the reading of the morning paper: not every

nineteenth

ing day

thing, the same reminder of but every day something new with

the same

destiny,

destiny. Specialization,

impossibility

entirely depends

look for

me

the very few this33

a moment at

duty duty

and

and exalted and exalted

less,

problem.

practical

things upon which

specialization compensated

philistinism and

the Jewish

less

essential

the stimulation of all kinds of interests

by

true passion, the danger of universal

let

absolute

no reminder of

more and more about

of concentration upon

man's wholeness

universality,

knowing

men's

by

sham

and curiosities without

creeping conformism. Or The nobility of Israel is

beyond praise, the only bright spot for the contemporary Jew who knows where he comes from. And yet Israel does not afford a solution to the

literally Jewish

conceal grave price of

It

"The Judaeo-Christian tradition"? This

problem.

differences. Cultural

blunting

thinking As

men and

you

may

to blur and to

means

only be had it

seems at

the

all edges.

be wholly unworthy of democracy even if they are

would

critics of

pluralism can

us as

thinking beings

not

democracy not blustering

enemies of

to listen to the

provided

especially great thinkers and from Mr. Gourevitch's lecture, Existentialism

recall

a certain experience

(anguish)

as the

basic

experience

they

are

fools.

in the light

appeals

to

of which

everything must be understood. Having this experience is one thing; regarding it as the basic experience is another thing. Its basic character is not guaranteed This argument only be guaranteed by in our time. admitted in what is it is implied generally may be invisible because What is generally admitted may imply, but only imply a fundamental uneasi-

by

the

experience

itself. It

argument.5

can

308

Interpretation

is vaguely felt but not faced. Given this context, the experience to which Existentialism refers will appear as a revelation, as the revelation, as the authentic interpretation of the fundamental uneasiness. But something more is ness which

required which

however is equally generally admitted in our time: the vaguely must be regarded as essential to man, and not only to present5

felt

uneasiness

day

man.

Let

non.

Yet this vaguely felt uneasiness is distinctly a present day phenome however that this uneasiness embodies what all earlier ages

us assume

have thought, is the result of what earlier ages have thought; in that case the vaguely felt uneasiness is the mature fruit of all earlier human efforts: no return is

to an older interpretation of that uneasiness is possible. Now this

a second

today (apart from the fundamental uneasiness which is faced); this second element is the belief in progress.

view

accepted

generally vaguely felt but not I have already referred to the more about

less

less.'

has

not

kept the

the

nineteenth century:

verse and

promise which

the truth

memorable

known

it held

expression

mean?

out

It

from its

means

'we know that

beginning

more and

modem science

up to the

end of

that it would reveal to us the true character of the uni

about man.

document

well

What does this

and

of

You have in the Education of Henry Adams

a

the change in the character and in the claim of science

itself felt in the general public towards the end of the last century has increased since, in momentum and sweep. You all know the that value-judgments are impermissible to the scientist in general and

which made and which

assertion

to the social scientist in particular. This means

increased

lutely

man's power

incapable to tell

whether

it is

wiser

to

in

men

how to

that

use

former

ways that

use5

that power.

power

wisely devilishly. From this it follows that science is

ingfulness We

ing,

or

to

answer

and

beneficently

unable

question whether and

Science

in

but8

which

in itself has

still said

to establish its

from the

own

ever

say

as

he

talking

as a scientist

point of view of science

spoken of a

bulk is

a scientist would

flight from

but

is

him

foolishly

that science and reason is man's highest power,

told that he was not which

If

no meaning.

cannot tell or

what sense science

are then confronted with an enormous apparatus whose

Mephisto

has

the

certainly that while science has dreamt of, it is abso

men never

is

and

mean-

good.

increas

Goethe's would

be

a value

judgment

altogether unwarranted.

Someone

was34

scientific reason.

making

This flight is

not

due to any

perversity but to science itself. I dimly remember the time when people argued as follows: to deny the possibility of science or rational value judgments means to admit that all values are of equal rank; and this means that respect

values, gone.

ity

universal

Today

of all

should

we

tolerance, is

hear that

values; that

draw

the

dictate

of scientific reason.

no conclusion whatever can

science

does

rational conclusions

not

from

legitimate

scientific

for

be drawn from the

nor

all

But this time has equal

indeed forbid that

findings. The

we

assumption that 31

rationally and therefore turn to science for reliable information this assumption is wholly outside of the purview and interest of science proper. we should act

The flight from

scientific reason

is35

the consequence of the

flight

of5

science

Existentialism from5

if he does

being does

from the

reason

not allow of value

progress except

in the

It

judgments has

his

who perverts

saying that a science which longer any possibility of speaking of

no

irrelevant

humanly

being

a rational

goes without

has accordingly been

cept of progress

is

notion that man

not act rationally.

309

sense of scientific progress:

by

replaced

the concept

the con

If

of change.

why science is good, of why fulfill a duty in devoting them

science or reason cannot answer the question of gifted and otherwise able people

sufficiently selves to nal: one

science,

may

Furthermore,

choose with equal science

does

no

human understanding36; it which will always remain

except that

mean

his

science and entific and

choice of science

and otherwise

conceive of

itself

that it is based

hypotheses. The

any

on

as

satisfying

choice of

does

not

the scientific orientation

as

groundless choice

of the choice of the scientific

myths.

fundamental hypotheses

the reflective scientist discovers

the choice of alternative orientations,

not ratio

the perfection of the

alternative orientation.

a8

is

whole stmcture of science

If this is so, the

choice of science

interpretation

that the

right pleasing

longer

as groundless as the choice of

this

effect

admits

rest on evident necessities.

is

in

science says

But

what else

does

the ground of

an abyss.

orientation,

on

For

the one

his

a sci

hand,

the other, presupposes already the

on

The fundamental freedom is the only Everything else rests on that fundamental free

acceptance of the scientific orientation. non-hypothetical phenomenon.

dom. We

are

Someone ism

might

are of course

have ism

already in the say that helpless

a rational

asked

by

the Existentialist onslaught. But do

as well as poor and stupid positiv

and

where of

the

old, of

match?19

do I find today the

philosopher who

good

life?19

Plato

of

ideas

as

Naturally

and of

I If

dares

the true metaphysics and the tme ethics which

to us in a rational, universally valid way the nature of

doctrine

no

philosophy?19

character of

phers of

we not

takes up the thread where science and positiv

which

I disregard the neo-Thomists, to say that he is in possession reveal

itself

science against

philosophy for which poetic, emotional Existentialism is myself for a long time where do I find that rational

drop it,

have

Existentialism.

midst of

we can sit at

or

feet

being

and the

of the great philoso

dare to say that Plato's Aristotle's doctrine of the nous that does

Aristotle. But

he intimated it,

the

who can

nothing but think itself and is essentially related to the eternal visible universe, Are those like myself who are inclined to sit at the feet of is the true teaching?19

the old philosophers

enough

to

remind

to the danger of a weak-kneed eclecticism

not exposed

which will not withstand a single

them

of

the

blow

on

the part of those who are competent

characterizes every thinker who deserves to be called

profound

disagreement among the

appeal

to them

proper

is taken

without

Weltanschauungslehre, theory mitted

great?19

great thinkers of the

blunting all edges? by what was

more and more

inspiration that

singleness of purpose and of

The

Considering

the

past, is it possible to

place of rational

philosophy in the country of its origin views. In this stage it is ad

called

of comprehensive

that we cannot refer to the tme metaphysical and ethical

teaching

avail-

310

Interpretation in any

able

great thinkers of

the

of

that37

the past. It is admitted

there

are n

answering the fundamental questions, that there are n types of absolute presuppositions as Collingwood called them, none of which can be said to be ways of

rationally

to any other. This

superior

has

truth as a rational philosophy

groundless;

fundamental at

its

end.

thus

we are

the fact that any

led39

to the abyss of

again

doctrine

such

it. It

means

just

of

the

in

the

as

presuppositions

is

freedom. To say nothing

of

that the

of comprehensive views presupposes

that fundamental human creativity

possibilities are available or

Furthermore there is

idea

to abandon the very

that the choice of any of these

scientists38

case of the social

means

always understood

disproportion between the

a radical

face the fundamental

is

analyst of

comprehensive views who

does

does

in their primary meaning, viz. as pointing to one thinkers themselves. He is separated from them by a

answer

deep

only,

position

are

to

the great

is

gulf which

of original

must

and

not

created

by

his

have been

the thinkers

understood

if

knowledge

pretended

philosophy itself. How understand

directly

questions

and

them

not even recognize

one

of

the Utopian character

possibly believe want to be understood they

that40

can we as

is to

he is in

and

as8

a

they

tabulate their teachings. We

order and

sufficiently familiar with the history of moral philosophy in particular in to be taken in for one moment by the pious hope that while there may

order not

be

profound

disagreements among the

spects, that they

will

possible

of

views

and that

views

If

way out finds itself

rational

in

philosophers

all other re

regarding human conduct. There is only one doctrine41 of comprehensive the predicament in which the

happily

agree

is to find the

ground of

the variety of comprehensive

soul or more generally stated in the human condition. indispensable step one is again already at the threshold of

in the human

one takes

this8

Existentialism. There is

another

People say that

very

values of our society. science

common

way

of

we must adopt values and

itself depends

Our42

solving the so-called that it is natural for

values are our

on values.

highest

principles

Now it is impossible to

value problem. us to adopt

the

if the meaning

overlook

the

of

relation

society to our society5, and the dependence of the principles on the society. This means generally stated that the principles, the so-called categorial system or the essences are rooted ultimately in the particu of

the

principles5

lar, in something

of our

which exists.

people mean when or relative to the

they

say,

decay

Existence that the

e.g.

of the

Greek

precedes essence.

Stoic

natural

polis and

For

what else

law teaching is

rooted

do in

the emergence of the Greek

empire?19

As I

said,43

sometimes people

try

to avoid the

difficulty indicated by

that we have to adopt the values of our society. This is altogether

for

serious men.

We

values of our society. values of one's

cannot

To

society

help

raising the

question as

accept the values of one's

means

saying impossible

to the value of the

society because they

are the

simply to shirk one's responsibility, not to

the situation that everyone has to

make

his

own

choice, to mn

away from

face

one's

Existentialism self.

To find the

society, because

duty

solution

to our problem in the acceptance of the

they

the

are

values of our

and to make oneself oblivious

society

-311

values of our

to make philistinism a

means

to the difference between tme individuals

and whitened sepulchres.

The

uneasiness

izes that

today is felt but

which

Existentialism

single word: relativism.

far from

relativism so

Existentialism is the

in the last

analysis

is in the last

be he

because it

in

we

have

but this

be

relief, is deadly.

All truth, all meaning is seen man's freedom. Objectively there This

nothingness.

experience cannot

life

and

of an

project,

a

real

relativism.

find

freely

Man is

are possible.

unsupported

nothingness can

an objective expres originates

ideal,

the absolute presupposition, the

understanding

by

an abyss.

in detachment. Man

made

horizon,

horizon-fonning

their own

but it

the realization that as the ground of all ob

discover

no support except

anguish

expressed

of relativism

a solution or even a

only meaninglessness,

cannot

the

originates

within which

a

to

analysis

experienced

sion:

knowledge

rational

with

be

can

the truth

reaction of serious men to

Existentialism begins then

jective,

being

faced

not

admits

man

project, of

by

a

meaning,

the project

virtue of such

thrown project.

More precisely man always lives already within such a horizon without being aware of its character; he takes his world as simply given; i.e. he has lost

himself; but he

himself back from his lostness

can call

and

take the respon

sibility for what he was in a lost, unauthentic way. Man is essentially a social being: to be a human being means to be with other human beings. To be in an way means to be in an authentic way is incompatible with being false to others. Thus with44

authentic oneself

exist a

the possibility of

strictly formal

However this may

possibility of an ethics. To be a human being authentic

means

in the world; to

and one's own

being

sham certainties

(and

as

that

from him the To live We

merely

the things

factual;

certainty necessarily himself

means

ultimately

oneself

he

must

resolutely,

Only

if

themselves to him as

world reveal

abyss of which

believed in the

the world as merely

within

to risk

man erects around

dangerously

are

be,

have to be however

never

to be in the world. To be authentic means to be

accept

way do the things in the consequence

Heidegger

all objective certainties are sham).

concern with objective

there would seem to

an existentialist ethics which would

ethics.

to be true to

others:

be

narrows

they

despising is in this are.

The

the horizon. It leads to the

an artificial

aware

man

factual

if he

setting which conceals to be truly human.

wants

to think exposedly.

confronted with mere

facticity

or contingency.

But

are we

not able and even compelled to raise the question of the causes of ourselves and of the things Where45

and

in the

world?

Whither,

or of

Indeed

the Where and Whither and the

light

of the whole,

Whole.46

in the light

ignorance is the basis

of

we cannot

the Whole. But

of

his

his lostness

help

we

Man

do

cannot understand

origin or

or

raising the questions of the not know and cannot know

the core

his of

end.

This

the human

himself in the irredeemable47

situation.

By

312

Interpretation

making this

Kant's

assertion existentialism restores

thing-in-itself and of

man's

knowledge

of objective

tentialism there is

ability to grasp the fact

law

It becomes necessary to

of

the

unknowable

his freedom

at

the limits

in

the ground of objective knowledge. But

and as

no moral

notion of

exis

and no other world.

fully

make as

the character of

explicit as possible

human existence; to raise the question what is human existence; and to bring to light the essential structures of human existence. This inquiry is called by Heidegger tenz

from the

Plato's

and

being

Existenz. Heidegger

analytics of

is

the fundamental ontology. This means he took

outset as

Aristotle's to

question what

be?19

Heidegger

is being? What is that Plato

agreed with

and

by

up

again

virtue of which

Aristotle

not

only as to this, that the question of what is to be is the fundamental question; he also agreed with Plato and Aristotle as to this, that the fundamental question must any

said

the analytics of Exis-

conceived of

be primarily

to that

addressed

Yet

authoritative way.

est sense means

in the highest

is

sense

brings to light the new

is5

in the

according to Plato

constituted

essential

by

Aristotle to be in the high

and

in

of

existence.

tivity? Does

knowledge,

the

not

difference

spite of the

of

the new philosophy is necessarily based on a specific

from

not subject

Man is

non of existence.

of

existence

of existence.

content, objective, analytics of subjec

philosophy too take on the character of absolute knowledge, final knowledge, infinite knowledge? No

cannot analyze existence

is

is: to be

new

complete

choice which

which man

Analytics

philosophy, comparable to Kant's transcendental

rational

be in the highest

that to

manner

structures, the unchangeable character

in

most

mortality.

analytics

Philosophy

the

most emphatic or

contends

is to say, to be in the

thus becomes

Philosophy

which

to be always, Heidegger

to exist, that

sense means

Is then the

while

being

to

a neutral point of

examination

in

order

finite being, incapable

a

ideal

view; one

of existence. must

have

to be open to the of absolute

One

made a

phenome

knowledge: his

very knowledge of his finiteness is finite. We may also say: commitment can only be understood by an understanding which is itself committed, which is a commitment. Or: existential philosophy is subjective truth about the specific5

subjectivity guided

by is

which

tialism

of

opinion

(or

general

terms,

rational

philosophy has been

the

with

Existenz.5

was

A

itself.

called

subjective

of

Heidegger

was

coherent exposition

tence within the traditional

of

formerly

itself to be

as49

reveals

of existen

superficial

itself

as

pro

the understanding that there is no apodicticity.

essential character of

distinction between

distinction). On the basis

called objective reveals

achievement

experience of

tence out

in

an equivalent of this

what

assertoric, great

of

speak

formerly

and

problematic;

The

To

the distinction between the objective which is true and the subjective

what was

found

tenz;5

truth.48

Existenz.5

horizon,

i.e.

the coherent exposition of the

based

within

essence and existence.

on

the experience of Exis

Kierkegaard had the

horizon

spoken of exis

the traditional Heidegger tried to understand exis of

Existentialism Yet the

analytics

of existence

was

eventually induced Heidegger to find to break with existentialism. I shall

to serious difficulties

exposed

fundamentally

a

313

basis,

new

which

that is to say,

these difficulties.

mention now some of

Heidegger demanded from philosophy that it should liberate itself com pletely from traditional or inherited notions which were mere survivals of for mer ways of thinking. He mentioned especially concepts that were of Christian theological origin. Yet his understanding of existence was obviously of Chris 1

(conscience,

tian origin analytics

of existence was

the

wonder whether

had

of existence

the

sun and

should

form

other words

it

difficulty

was

said

neatly

own existentialism

physics, Plato to

are. all

rather

the

beings of

4

are.

The highest

finiteness:

yet

how

infinity?19

of

Professor

whole?

Hocking

can

Or in

stated

presupposes espoir and espoir

than despair the

Hegel had

is the

metaphysics

made

fundamental

to Kant. The

this

presup

phenomenon?

that

same as

Existence are.

relation of

Heidegger to

Hegel to Kant. The

of

objections

to lead to the consequence that one cannot escape meta consequence

is impossible. But

intended

on an

must rather

From this

be

is is

what

needed

understood

point of view

by

some repetition of

Existence

virtue of which

in the light

the

is

plane.

Heidegger. The

by

rejected

entirely different

clue, the clue to the understanding of that

beings

hence

example

ultimately loves, God, the ultimate ground? Heidegger made to himself were fundamentally the

Aristotle. This

and

what metaphysics the5

analytics

not that which man

objections which

mentioned would seem

return

The

truth and

that we cannot know the whole; but does this not

then not love

same objections which

his

no

beings (for

in the light

not seen

follows: desespoir

as

3

human beings. This is hard: that there

virtue of which

finiteness if it is

be

there can be

while

The fact that the

of existence made one

arbitrary.

be finite knowledge

presuppose awareness of

love; is

Is therefore These

to

was said

seen as

by

that

without

ideal

specific

assertion that there can

are no

2)50

anguish).

fundamentally

the earth), if there

finiteness be

poses

in the

a

beings,

knowledge

necessarily

on

human

are no

be beings

of

based

death,

unto

analysis was not

culminated

be, if there

no to

being

guilt,

of

that

by

cannot all5

be

beings

virtue of which

analytics of existence appears still

to

subjectivism.51

partake of modem

I have of

compared

the relation of Heidegger to existentialism with the relation

Hegel to Kant. Hegel may be said to have been the first philosopher who that his philosophy belongs to his time. Heidegger's criticism of

was aware

existentialism can therefore

be the insight into the such would

belong

be

existentialism claims

essential character of

man, the final

insight

claims

to

which as

time, to the fullness of time. And yet existential a fullness of time: the historical process is unfinwill

be

a

historical being.

In

other

words

to be the understanding of the

not reflect about

of western man.

follows. Existentialism

to the final

ism denies the possibility of ishable; man is and always does

expressed as

its

own

historicity,

of

its

historicity of man and yet it belonging to a specific situation

It becomes therefore necessary to

return

from Kierkegaard's

314

Interpretation

existing individual who has nothing but contempt for Hegel's understanding of man in terms of universal history, to that Hegelian understanding. The situation to which

existentialism

belongs

liberal

be

can

seen

insight has

grave

which

Let

consequences.

of

itself

uncertain of

Europe

a

This

Hegel.

to

moment

its

or of

West.52

or of the

look back for

us

More

to be liberal democracy.

has become

democracy precisely future. Existentialism belongs to the decline a

Hegel's philosophy knew itself to belong to a specific time. As the completion or perfection of philosophy it belonged to the completion or fullness of time. This

for Hegel that it belonged to the post-revolutionary state, to Europe under Napoleon non-feudal, equality of opportunity, even free enter

meant

united

prise, but a strong expressive of of

the rights of

head

man or of

the state guided

of

dependent

government not

the general will

by

which

the a

ety thus constructed was the

is the

dignity

first

will of

the majority yet recognition

each,

every human being, the

of

rate and

final

the

on

reasonable will of

highly History

monarchic

Soci

educated civil service.

society.

had

come

to its

end.

Pre

cisely because history had come to its end, the completion of philosophy had become possible. The owl of Minerva commences its flight at the beginning of dusk. The the

completion of

therewith,

west and

west, the

Almost

beginning

of

history

is the

beginning

since all other cultures

the decline

of

have been

the decline of mankind. There

everyone rebelled against

is

Hegel's conclusion,

no

of

Europe,

absorbed

future for

no one more

of

into the

mankind.

powerfully

than Marx. He pointed out the untenable character of the settlement and the problem of the

the vision of a world

arose

working

class with all

post-revolutionary its implications. There

which presupposed and established

society

the complete victory of the town over the country, of the

Orient53;

which would make possible

the

full

Occident53

potentialities of

each,

on

for

ever

the

over

the basis

of man

world

who

having become completely collectivized. The man of the is perfectly free and equal is so in the last analysis because

all specializa

tion,

all

division

of

society

labor has been abolished; all division of labor has been private property. The man of the world society

to be due ultimately to

hunting in his

in the forenoon,

fied the the

extreme

the

set.

philosophizes

He is

a perfect

in the afternoon,

jack

of all

energy society as the last man, that is to say, as This did not mean however that Nietzsche

of man.

European

conservatives

democratic

which was not a

he

saw

in

communism

As

the consis

only liberalistic demand for freedom from. But in contra

egalitarianism and of

that

freedom for, but only a conservatives he saw that conservatism

distinction to the European

as such

is

merely defensive positions are doomed. All merely backward positions are doomed. The future was with democracy and with nation

doomed. For

alism.

trades. No one

than Nietzsche. He identi

the non-communist society of the nineteenth century or its future.

completion of

looking

works

communist world

degradation

all continental

freedom

has

noon,

the communist vision with greater

man of

accepted

tent

the sun

garden after

questioned

paints at

seen goes

all

And both

were regarded

by

Nietzsche

as

incompatible

with what

he

saw

Existentialism to be the task of the twentieth

leading

age of world wars,

this rule would

have to be

tasks

iron

of such an

for this

and

reason also

the

by

an overstatement to

most superficial

human

future,

enormous

meaning

of

most obvious

his

notion of

the planetary age. The

philosophers5

of

new5

meaning

the super

greatness would not enable man to

of

Nietzsche. This is

as

the future as Nietzsche described them to have thought, of

features in

to have a

invisible

face the mlers of

the future. It is certainly not

say that no one has ever spoken so greatly and so nobly of

is

what a philosopher

ideal. This is the

a new

infinitely increased responsibility that possible future would be the

the

man were

Europe. And the

a united

the emergence of a new aristocracy. It had to be a

man: all previous notions of

self seems

If

rule.

possibly be discharged, he thought, by weak dependent upon democratic public opinion. The new

nobility formed

a

nobility,

by

exercised

the twentieth century to be the

saw

age could not

and unstable governments situation required

He

century.

up to planetary

-315

deny

that the philosophers of

remind much more

Plato's5

as5

not to

philosophers.

Nietzsche

For

Nietzsche him

than while

Plato had

seen

clearly clearly than he had intimated rather than stated his deepest insights. But there is Nietzsche, one decisive difference between Nietzsche's philosophy of the future and

Plato's

question

philosophy.

Bible. He is

as

Nietzsche's

heir to that

an

philosopher54

deepening

of

and perhaps more

of

the future is

an

heir to the

the soul which has been effected

by

the biblical belief in a God that is holy. The philosopher of the future as distin guished

from the

classical philosophers will

be

philosophizing intrinsically lieves in God, the biblical God. He is will

for

a god who

also

has

religious.

not yet shown

an

be

concerned with

This does

atheist, but

the holy. His

not mean that

with

the biblical

especially because the biblical God as the creator of the the world: compared with the biblical God as the highest

and

outside

is waiting faith

an atheist who

himself. He has broken

he be

world

is

the

good

is necessarily less than perfect. In other words the biblical faith neces leads according to Nietzsche to other-worldliness or asceticism. The con sarily highest human excellence is that man remains or becomes fully of the dition world

loyal to the earth; that there is nothing concern to us be it god or ideas or knowledge

or

by

faith.

Every

outside of

the world, i.e.

his

Such

world.

character of

perplexing is rooted in

of

a

of

is

concern

concern

progress

original vigor were

non-communists

seemed

which man

of

any

by

the world as is

alienates man

from

from the terrifying down reality to what a man can bear

in the desire to

escape

and

it

sense

decayed. The only people who kept that faith the communists. But precisely communism showed to

the delusion of progress. Spengler's Decline of the West

to be much more credible. But one had to

Spengler's

lives,

be

certain

Europe to its foundations. Men lost their

shook

direction. The faith in

the

such a ground of

be

comfort.

The First World War

in its

for

the world in

rooted

reality, to cut

desire for

outside the world which could atoms of which we could

prognosis.

Is there

no

hope for Europe

be inhuman to leave it

and therewith

for

at

mankind?

316 It

Interpretation in the

was

and withdrew. for55

him? Nietzsche's hope united

only

had

rule

but

revitalized

ton or Moscow

this

appeared

It

iron

self

levelling

unity

no

of

How

can

or

Moscow

either

by Washing

For Heidegger it did

would

be the

center:

not make a

"America

and

What is decisive for him is that He

more than a nightmare.

as

calls

it the "night

Marx had predicted, the victory

completely technological,

and

of an evermore

the whole planet

west over

it is brought

regardless whether

uniformity

the

of

by

about

by

routine without rhyme and

no

elevation,

peoples, but

withdrawal, but

leisure,

recreation;

satisfied

Fundamentally because by this world society: the

ideals have

societies.

The

old

no concentra

individuals

and

is something in man desire for the genuine, for

there

the noble, for the great. This desire has expressed itself in previous

no

crowds."

"lonely

be

no

reason;

work and

there be hope?

which cannot

not

soapy advertisement of the output of mass production. It the human race on the lowest level, complete emptiness of life,

perpetuating

tion, no

indeed,

evermore

compulsion or

means

Europe

same."

means

urbanized,

approaching.

metaphysically the

are

world."

complete

to be

society is to him

world

a

this new, transcendent responsibility of planetary

Washington

whether

Soviet Russia

by

for55

Europe ruling the planet,

a united

to be a delusion. A world society controlled

proved

difference

hope that Heidegger perversely welcomed 1933. He What did the failure of the Nazis teach

spirit of such

became disappointed

proved

ideals

to be

ideals, but

man's

all

to societies which were not world

related

will not enable man

overcome5

to

the power, to

master5

technology. We may also say: a world society can be human is if there a world culture, a culture genuinely uniting all men. But there only never has been a high culture without a religious basis: the world society can be

the

power of

human only if all religions are

by

the

men are

steadily

progress

united

genuinely

undermined as

far

by

as

towards a technological

But

a world religion.

all existing is concerned, There forms itself an

their effective power

world society.

open or concealed world alliance of the

by

their

conceal ible5

existing religions which are united only Their union requires that they (atheistic communism). enemy fact56 that they are incompat from themselves and from the world the common

that

with each other

This is

not

very

world religion.

becomes

promising.

He

receptive

can

the

each regards

On the

only

other

man

indeed noble, but cannot make or fabricate

untrue.5

it

by becoming deeply enough about

prepare

to it if he thinks

others as

hand,57

to it. And

receptive

himself

and

his

a

he

situa

tion.

Man's

humanity is

threatened with

the fruit of rationalism

philosophy is the same

time of the

extinction

and rationalism

condition of impasse5

the possibility of

created

by

by

is the fruit

losophy

was

of

the attempt to

and

There is

of modem

understand the whole.

is

therefore

at

the

hope beyond limitations to Greek philoso

technology.

technology, to say nothing

Technology

Greek philosophy. Greek

technology

technological mass society if there are no essential

phy, the root

technology.

of

no

philosophy.

Greek

phi

It presupposed therefore that

Existentialism the whole

is intelligible,

ligible:

the disposal of

at

or

that the grounds of the whole are essentially intel

human mastery

of

ing58

be

in

the

means

is the

view

and therefore

in

condition of the possi

But that mastery leads, if its ultimate degradation of man. Only by becom

on a specific

the

have hope.

can we

discovery

being

of what

understanding

Transcending

the limits of rationalism.

of

means,

viz.

that

primarily to be present, to be ready at hand and therefore that to be

highest

be

sense means to

to be a

rationalism proves

dogmatic

is hollow:

rationalism

A

cannot master. assertion that to

means

be

to

spite of

itself

of

rests on

its seemingly overwhelming on something which it

rests

being

of

understanding be

elusive or to

This basis

always.

Rationalism itself

assumption.

rationalism

more adequate

be

present, to be

always

non-rational, unevident assumptions: in

power,

always5

are

to the ultimate

rationalism requires

Rationalism is based to

they

is beyond human mastery

aware of what

the limits of

This

man.5

of the whole.

drawn,

consequences are

that

man as man

principle always accessible to

bility

"317

is intimated This is the

a mystery.

by

the

eastern

understanding of being. Hence there is no will to mastery in the east. We can hope beyond technological world society, for a world society only if genuine5

we

become

capable of

learning

from the east, especially from China. But China There is needed a of the west and of meeting5

succumbs to western rationalism.

The

the east.

has to

west

make

its

own

technology. The west has first to recover

contribution to the within

itself that

overcoming

of

which would make

meeting of west and east. The west has to recover within itself its deepest roots which antedate its rationalism, which, in a way, antedate the

possible a own

separation of west and east.

the level

vocal, of

of present

most

both

day

genuine

meeting of i.e. in the form

roots of

The meeting

is

west and east

possible on

the meeting of the most

of

most superficial representatives of

glib,

west and east.

the deepest

No

thought

the

most superficial period

of west and east can

only be

a

meeting

of

both.

Heidegger is the only

has

man who

an

inkling

of

the dimensions of the

problem of a world society.

The

western

in Heidegger's

Biblical thought is

lute,

one

the east

blocks the

within

earlier

one

form

access

within61

us,

descending59

meeting by the limitations of

that

the biblical tradition. (Here

by

ments

can prepare

the west. Within the west

roots of

seen

thinker

lies the justification for the biblical

thought.) But

of

Eastern60

to other

forms

western man.

this must be

thought.

experience of

ele

understood.

the Bible as abso

thought. Yet the Bible

is

Bible but the Bible

as

Not the Bible

as

us

being. The specifically

consequence that

the

being was experienced being ence of

rightly

By taking

of eastern

in overcoming Greek rationalism. help The deepest root of the west is a specific understanding

eastern can

to the deepest

rationalism were always

western experience of

ground of grounds was

used

in

a

forgotten

only for the investigation way

of

which prevented

of

being,

a specific

being

led to the

the

primary experi the beings. The east has and

the investigation of beings and

318

Interpretation

therewith the concern with the mastery of beings. But the

being

in principle,

makes possible

ourselves to the problem of em

understanding

The not

being,

of

being

only

of religion

but

the problematic

By

character of

opening

the

west-

may gain access to the deepest root of the east. is indicated by the word being will be the ground

even of

the possibility

being.

coherent speech about

and to

we

ground of grounds which

understand

western experience of

From here

possible gods.

any

one can

begin to

of a world religion.

The meeting of east and west depends on an understanding of being. More precisely it depends on an understanding of that by virtue of which beings are esse, etre, to be, as distinguished from entia, etants, beings. Esse as Heidegger

it may be described crudely

understands

and

superficially and even misleadingly, but not altogether misleadingly, by saying that it is a synthesis of Platonic ideas and the biblical God: it is as impersonal as the Platonic ideas and as elusive as

the biblical God.

NOTES

1

"compare" .

left

has been

uncorrected

added

hand to

by

3. In the typescript the begins

changed

the insertion of the capital letter. The period at the that seems to have been

correction of a comma

"theoretical"

replace

has been

which

instance,

"

the.

The

crossed out.

"observer,"

and

the new one

punctuation and capitalization

have been

hand.

by

4. Continuation

for

by

editors'

previous sentence ends after the word

the words "For

with

hand

is the

in the typescript.

"thinking"

2.

by

changed

"warning"

the previous word

end of

of the old paragraph

in the typescript, but

with a marginal

indication

by

hand

a new one.

5.

Underlining

added

7. "to limit the

by hand. by hand to

added

"Weber's"

6.

"his"

which

replace

remark"

comparison

to the

has been

by

added

hand to

crossed out. replace

"to

say"

which

has been

crossed out.

8. Word

added

10. The 11

(in the

by

"that"

added

by

between the

lines) by

hand.

"the"

has been

crossed out.

replace

before

"indicated"

by

margin or

hand to

word

.

12. The added

added

"in"

9.

which

"the"

hand to

has been

crossed out.

"meant"

replace

"pragmata"

comma after

and

which

has been

crossed out.

the words "things which we handle and

use"

have been

hand.

13. The

"rationalistic"

word

has been

changed

to

"rational"

by

hand

by crossing

out the

letters

"istic.''

14. The "am"

above

15. "of 16.

"I'm"

word

has been

replaced

by

"I

"

am"

by hand, by

crossing

out

'm

"

and

adding

the line. added

by

"Kant"

added

hand to

by

"about"

replace

hand to

which

has been

"Heidegger"

replace

which

crossed out.

has been

crossed out.

typescript, but not one that gives any clear indication of having been seen by "cowered." Professor Strauss, this word has been changed by an unknown hand to This other Professor which has been Strauss's students for some years, is the typescript, circulating among 17. In

one

from

another

which

Thomas Pangle

worked

in editing this lecture for The Rebirth of Classical Political

Rationalism.

18.

"character"

19. The

added

by

question mark

hand to

has been

"possibility"

replace

added

by

which

has been

crossed out.

the editors to correct a period in the typescript.

319

Existentialism 20. "of

added

21. The

word order

"about"

by hand

to replace

has been

which

here has been

hand. The

by

changed

crossed out.

original

typed phrase is "so radically

orientation."

the intellectual

22. "and in

way"

a most general

added

23. The typescript has the

"low

words

hand.

by

land"

which

have been joined into

by

a single word

hand. work"

24. "which

permeated the

"1953"

25.

by

added

26. The

does"

"as Nietzsche

words

by hand, by

added

"1952"

have been

after

in the typescript.

and

"as passionately

by

replaced

"as"

as"

"passionately

adding

hand.

by

the editors to correct

by

crossing

did"

Nietzsche

as

"does"

"did"

out

and

above

adding

the line. "a"

27.

of

hand to

by

added "to"

28.

has been

by

"his"

has been

"problem"

"the"

by

is

32. The

"as

words

"this"

added "was"

added

by by

"is"

35. The

follows"

word

36. The typescript

hand

the end

period at

that seems to have been left

has been

37. The

"we

words

added

by

"the"

which "is"

replace

in

which

period after the

note

hand.

has been

has been

crossed out.

crossed out.

though not, it seems,

by hand,

added

The

hand.

to replace

referred to

crossed out.

by the insertion of the capital letter. by hand of the original comma.

have been

hand to

by

Professor Strauss's hand.

"mind,"

17 apparently has the

by

confirmed as such

word

"understanding."

hand, instead

an unknown

by

has been

which

hand

a correction

31. The dash has been inserted

of

crossed out.

correction of a comma

replace

changed

previous word

34.

by

has been

the insertion of the capital letter. The

editors'

is the

hand to

by

added "and"

33.

which

hand

in the typescript.

uncorrected

30.

replace

changed

"nobility"

the previous word

29.

"the"

of

to the true

cannot refer

is

the great thinkers of the past. It

teaching available in any by hand, though not by

metaphysical and ethical that"

have been

admitted

added

Professor Strauss's hand. 38. The typescript

"groundless"

39. The hand to

to in note 17 has the

referred

"him"

40. The

us"

"and leads

has been

which

before

word

the words "we

and

semicolon after

replace

"that"

"sciences"

word

instead

thus

are

led"

"scientists."

of

have been

has been

crossed out.

"doctrine"

41.

by

added

crossed out.

is the reading of the typescript referred to in note 17. It is included which appears in the primary typescript. correction for the word

by

the

"doctrines,"

editors as a

"Yet"

42. The

inserted

by

word

43. "As I removed

44.

"our"

before

has been

by

said,"

added

hand. A

by

"with"

by

added

hand to

capital

letter

"to"

at the

beginning

other typescript referred

"Our"

has been

"sometimes"

of

has been

word

48. The

"about

words

to in

truth"

subjective

by hand, by

note

17 has the

after

adding above

49. This

the

is

word

"2)"

added

51. Quotation

line,

have been

"irremediable"

enclosed

by

by

the final

marks

"Secondly,"

have been added,

which

by

of

"irre

"subjective"

by

replace

instead

"about the subjectivity of and adding the in

"e"

by crossing adding "of between in parentheses inserted by hand.

hand to

of

truth"

replaced

out

and

"Where."

of

in brackets, instead

word

"truth."

"subjectivity"

"ity"

instead

reading.

"about,"

"the"

"whence,"

Whole."

that this is the correct

editors suspect

"Whence"

to in note 17 has the

other typescript referred

The

crossed out.

word

the phrase "Where and Whither and the

47. The

has been

17 has the

typescript referred to in note

46. The

deemable."

which

replace

other

50.

letter in

the editors.

45. The

letters

crossed out and the capital

hand.

and

has been

an unknown

hand,

crossed out.

around

the

words

"modern

sub

jectivism."

52. The 53. The

words

"or

of

and

West"

which

have been "Orient"

and

words

"east,"

"west"

the

"Occident"

added

by

hand.

have been inserted

have not, however, been

crossed out.

by

hand

above

the typed words

320

Interpretation

54.

"philosophy"

"er"

adding 55.

has been

above the

"for"

words

"the

57. The

words

"This is

59.

letter

fact"

"man"

word

have been

not

beginning

the

at

"dissenting"

very

of

before

has been

capital

61. The

crossing

out

"y"

the final

and

has been

These

crossed out.

changes are appar

letter

at

"within"

the

hand,"

On the

has been

other

removed

has been

have been

added

by

hand. A

the editors.

crossed out.

"descending"

by

by

by hand, by

crossing

out the

letters

"is-

the line.

beginning

before

word

hand.

by

added

"becoming"

replaced

above

adding

60. The

which

promising.

"man"

"escend"

sent"

and

"of

hand to

ently by 56. The

58. The

replace

by

Professor Strauss's hand.

not

capital

by

line.

by

added

"philosopher"

hand to

changed

"Eastern"

has been inserted

of

"western"

has been

by hand,

added

by

hand.

but not, it seems,

by

Pro

fessor Strauss's hand.

EPILOGUE

divergences, most of which are apparently minor, between in The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism: An Introduc tion to the Thought of Leo Strauss. Those divergences which appear to be most significant, apart from the fact that the paragraph breaks are different, are the following (page references are to the There

are a considerable number of

this text and the

version published

earlier version):

The title is different, and the first p. 29, line 32: Instead of

sentence

"Heidegger"

p.

30: Between the first

and

is missing in the

earlier version.

the present version reads "Kant".

the second paragraphs on this page, the present

version

inserts

a short

paragraph.

p.

30, line 5 of the second 31, line 22: Between 38, line 25: After

p.

39, line 7 from bottom: The

p.

paragraph reads

"that"

another

full

sentence.

differently

"Nietzsche"

"era"

p.

and

in the

the present version inserts a

After this

insertion,

the

present version

present version.

the present version

"the,"

word

has

inserts three

new completion of

sentences.

this sentence and then

capitalized, begins

a sentence worded so

a new sentence.

differently

as

to change

the meaning considerably. p.

43: The

one-sentence paragraph

the present version placed p.

44, line 24: The being,"

as

well

remainder of

Introduction.

which

with

the words "Heidegger

is the only

man

.

.

is in

beginning at the bottom of the page. beginning with the words "The ground of

paragraph

this paragraph,

as the entire subsequent

Socrates,"

problem of

beginning

just before the

paragraph, is taken from

Professor Strauss delivered many

years

all

different lecture, "The later. Cf. page xxix of the a

The

Socrates

problem of

Leo Strauss

Socrates"

"The the

problem

Annapolis

Professor

delivered

as a

lecture

on

April 17, 1970,

on

of St. John's College. Professor Strauss's daughter, Clay, of the Department of Classics at the University of Vir

campus

Jenny

has generously

ginia,

Also,

was

of

made available to the editors a copy of the manuscript. recording of the lecture in the St. John's College library in An

a tape

napolis was available to the

minutes,

with

half of the

nearly

as were copies

editors,

the tape is

Unfortunately,

tion of that tape.

of an

broken off

manuscript still

transcrip

anonymous after about

forty-five

unread, and the transcription

tape does. Still, the transcription, as corrected by the basis of the tape itself, offers a version of the first part of the differs from the manuscript in a number of places and which

also ends where The editors on the

lecture

which

be

sometimes appears to

to it.

superior

Thus,

published text.

When the lecture

as

that are not in the manuscript, we cases where the two authorities

in the lecture cases we

those

delivered,

as

have

also

discrepancies

included it in the in

a note.

indicates

compelled Strauss'

clarity.

where we

text without

All italics

where

to

we

rely

have

on

the

basis for

brackets. In the

have in

a note.

In the

manuscript

and we

are

have included

based

and after alone.

on

cases where we

have

of

have

the oral version

the manuscript.

A

note

this point we are of course

We have

preserved

s punctuation to the extent that we thought possible without

In those few

case

preferred the manuscript version, we

broken off,

other

preferred the version

included it in brackets, but in these

again

brackets,

our

contains a word or words

manuscript version

have

chosen to give the re

these in

and where we

and paragraphs

the tape is

have

delivered merely

have included

differ

included the

we

the manuscript as a

corded version almost equal weight with

Professor sacrificing (apart

made a change on our own

from adding or subtracting a comma), we have so indicated in a note. We have been compelled to substitute transliterations for Professor Strauss's Greek words and script.

phrases, all of

Finally,

deciphering A

which appear

we are grateful to

in the

original

Greek in the

Dr. Heinrich Meier for his

generous

manu

help

in

Professor Strauss's handwriting.

of this lecture has been published previously, incorporated different lecture and in a somewhat modified form, in The Rebirth of

small portion

within a

Classical Political Rationalism: An Introduction to the Thought

1995

by

The

University

interpretation,

of

Chicago. All rights

Spring 1995,

Vol.

22, No. 3

reserved.

of

Leo Strauss

322

Interpretation

(Chicago:

University

Chicago]), [I

of Chicago

told that the local

was

Press, 1989 [ 1989 by The University of

44-46.

pp.

Socrates."

than one problem of

has

paper

This

problems of

may be

Socrates,

of no concern

after all there are so

far

as

immediately last

him,

Socrates

him.]1

by

was coined

decadent

was a

people, to the

in

Socrates

obviously But we

was concerned. Socrates'

problem

lecture,

and

Socrates"

problem of

which,

by as

is the first,

in Nietzsche's Dawn of Idols, one of his we hear, were decadents. More precisely, Plato, belonged to the lowest stratum of the common

of a section

and

who

[I quote:]

riff-raff.

"The

was

Therefore

relevant.

which concern us so much more

problem with which

revealing title

publications.

Socrates

be

answer

I remember,

"The

Socrates

with which

not

why we should be concerned with to the man from whom I took the title of this

receive an

listening

to us, that it may

many things

urgently than the

and

tonight on

engaging printing error; for there is more in the first place, the problem with which Socra

tes was concerned. But one could say, the problem concerned

I lecture

announced that

was an

is exaggerated, buffo,

"Everything

caricature

everything is at the same time concealed, rich in afterthoughts, subter The enigma of Socrates is the idiotic equation of reason, virtue and

ranean."

happiness

an equation opposed to all

Greek health

and nobility.

tics, i.e. the

quest

for,

seek

and

for

The

key

reasons.

is

The

earlier

of good manners.

Only

those

of

by

and2

to present, the reasons of their

the command either of the gods or of

other means

instincts

supplied

have

Greeks,

discovery

of

of

[the]

dialec

high-class Greeks disdained to To

conduct.

themselves,

people

the earlier

Socrates'

abide

by

authority,

by

for them simply a matter to dialectics who have no

was

recourse

for getting listened to and respected. It is a kind of revenge which high-bom. "The dialectician leaves it to his adversary

the low-bom take of the to prove that less."

he is

not an

idiot. He

Socrates fascinated because he discovered in dialectics

agon, [of contest]; he thus them and

enrages and at the same time makes

Plato. In

above all

[were

reason.

an age when

disintegrating]3,

Yet the

cure

When speaking

won over

the noble

youth of

one needed a non-instinctual

belongs

as much

of the earlier

to

Athens

instincts had lost their

the

decadence

Greeks,

as

a new

help

form

of

and

among

ancient

surety,

tyrant; this

tyrant

was4

the illness.

Nietzsche thinks

also of

the

philoso

phers, the pre-Socratic philosophers5, especially Heraclitus. This does not mean that he agreed with Heraclitus. One reason why he did not was that he, like all

philosophers, lacked the

Platonism age

and

hence Socratism

to face reality

without

ideas. In Thucydides the full6

"historical

was at all

illusion

sophistic

sense."

Nietzsche's

times Thucydides who

and to

seek reason

cure

for

had the

in reality,

all

cour

and not

in

culture, i.e. the realistic culture, comes to

its

expression.

The of

[so-called]

section on the problem of

Socrates in the Dawn of Idols is only a relic out of the Spirit of Music

Nietzsche's first publication, The Birth of Tragedy

The he disowned to

which

later on,

some extent

being that

one reason

323

of Socrates

problem

he Had

under

[in that early work] Greek tragedy in the light or the darkness of Wag nerian music, and he had come to see that Wagner was a decadent [of the first stood

order].

In

defects Nietzsche's first

spite of this and other

future life

work with

[I

clarity.

amazing

work

delineates his

therefore say something about

will

that.] Nietzsche

paints

cerned with

that man

Socrates

"the

as

[Nietzsche's]8

world-history."7

future

the

single

Germany

of

turning

concern was not

hitherto is that

manner of

merely theoretical; he was con a human future

the future of Europe

or

the highest that [has ever

must surpass

point and vortex of so-called

been

achieved]9

life that found its

before. The

expression

peak of

in Greek tragedy,

"tragic"

especially in Aeschylean tragedy. The understanding of the world was rejected and destroyed by Socrates, who therefore is "the most questionable antiquity,"

a man of more than

phenomenon of

human

size: a

demigod. Socra

brief] is the first theoretical man, the incarnation of the spirit of science, radically un-artistic and a-music. "In the person of Socrates the belief in the tes [in

comprehensibility has first come to

for

the optimist,

He is the

healing

universal

the

prototype of

power of

rationalist and

knowledge

therefore of

merely the belief that the world is the best the belief that the world can be made into the best of is

optimism

world, but

possible

in the

of nature and light."

also

not

imaginable worlds, or that the evils which belong to the best possible world can be rendered harmless by knowledge: thinking can not only fully understand all

being

but

can even correct

myth can

be

and used

in the

replaced

is the belief that

a

riddles

the belief in causes

presupposes

deus

guided

egoism".10

is

initial

by

science; the

living

gods of

known

of nature as

Rationalism is optimism,

since

it

essentially beneficent or that chains. Rationalism is optimism,

unlimited and

loosen

and

the

be

machina, i.e. the forces

ex

depends

the belief in the

ultimate consequences of

can

"higher

reason's power

science can solve all since

by

service of

it; life

all

on the

or

belief in

ends or since rationalism

final supremacy

of

the good. The

change effected or represented

by

full

Socrates

and

appear

only in the contemporary West: in the belief in universal enlightenment and therewith in the earthly happiness of all within a universal society, in utilitarian

ism, liberalism, democracy, and the

insight into the

pacifism, and

essential

culture"

to its foundation: "the time

hope for

a

future beyond the

but

knowingly

Nietzsche's liberator from most

the demanded

have

Socratic

man

has

consequences

shaken

"Socratic

gone."

There is then

peak of pre-Socratic

culture, for

no

,

will11

attack on all

dangerous

other words,

of

Both these

of science

a philosophy of longer merely theoretical [as all philosophy hitherto was] or on decision. based on acts of the

future that is

the

socialism.

limitations

Socrates is

an attack on reason:

reason, the

celebrated

prejudices, proves itself to be based on a prejudice, and the

of all prejudices:

reason,

which

sacrifice

of the

the prejudice stemming from decadence. In

waxes

so

intellect,

easily rests

and

itself

so

highly

indignant

about

on the sacrifice of the intel-

324

'Interpretation

lect.12

This

obscurantism and

One

perhaps attempt tes]13

I

referred

if

life-long fascination

exerted a

ment of this

Socrates

misunderstand the utterances of Nietzsche on

quoted or to which

Socrates

a man who stood at the opposite pole of all

fundamentalism.

therefore

would

I

which

by

criticism was made

fascination is the

one

on

did

not

keep

Nietzsche. The

penultimate aphorism of

in

mind

most

the

fact that

beautiful docu

Beyond Good

and

Evil,

in Nietzsche's [whole] work. I do not dare to translate it. Nietzsche does not mention Socrates there, but [Socra the

most

beautiful

is there. Nietzsche

passage

says

there14

that the gods too philosophize, thus obvi

Symposium15

ously contradicting Plato's according to which the gods do not do not strive for philosophize, wisdom, but are wise. In other words, [the] gods, as Nietzsche understands them, are not entia perfectissima [most perfect beings]. I

add

rates can also

few16 points. The serious opposition of Nietzsche to Soc only a be expressed as follows: Nietzsche replaces eros by the will to

striving which has a goal beyond striving by a striving which has no such goal. In other words, philosophy as it was hitherto is likened to the moon and philosophy of the future is like the sun; the former is contemplative

power

and

a

[sends]17

only borrowed light, is dependent on creative acts outside of it, the latter is creative because it is animated by conscious will to

preceding it; power. Nietzsche's Zarathustra is "a book for title page]; Socrates calls

I

on some.

therewith

Socrates,

with

[as it

and

Nietzsche

Evil,

says as

it

taking issue

when were

in

passing:

the

says on

add one more point of no small

tance. In the Preface to Beyond Good and

none"

all and

impor

with

Plato

"Christianity

is Platonism for the The

profoundest

interpreter

and at

the same time the profoundest critic of

Nietzsche is Heidegger. He is Nietzsche's

because he is his may be indicated

profoundest critic. as

spirit of revenge as

however in the last the attempt to

follows. In animating

his18

profoundest

The direction

interpreter

which

his

Zarathustra Nietzsche had

all earlier

philosophy; the spirit

analysis concerned with revenge on

[precisely]

criticism

takes

spoken of

the

of revenge

and therewith

it

is is19

time, from time to eternity, to an eternal being. Yet Nietzsche return. For Heidegger there is no longer eternity in any

escape

also taught eternal

sempiternity in any relevant sense. Despite of this or rather be Nietzsche's21 condemnation or critique of Plato as this20, he preserved

sense or even cause of

the originator of what came to be modem science and therewith modem tech nology.

But through Heidegger's

radical transformation of Nietzsche, Socrates disappeared. I remember completely only one statement of Heidegger's on Socrates: he calls him the purest of [all]22 Western thinkers, while making it clear that is something very different from "greatest." Is he insuffi

almost

"purest"

ciently

aware of the

connection

To

between

come

there is

no

Odysseus in Socrates? Socrates'

[Perhaps.]23

But he surely

sees the

purity and the fact that he did not write. back to Heidegger's tacit denial of eternity, that denial implies

way in

singular

that

which

thought can transcend time, can transcend

History-

all

The

of Socrates

problem

325

thought belongs to, depends on, something more fundamental which thought cannot master; all thought belongs radically to an epoch, a culture, a folk. This view

is

Heidegger; it

of course not peculiar to

today has become for many

people a truism.

in the 19th century and But Heidegger has thought it

emerged 24

"historicism"

radically than anyone else. Let us call this view follows: historicism is a view according to which

through more

define it based

as

on absolute presuppositions which

ture to culture, tion to which

by

down,

they belong

and which

of

barriers; for

all cultural

science, the child or stepchild possible

by

To

(panta

[a

Jewish

simple]26

historical

and

science.

particular

[inexpressible in philosophers

Socrates

consciousness.

transcends, or breaks does this is modern Western Greek

science was rendered

language;

means

original

knowledge

had to invent

and

This is the

Plato, lacked

of all

most popular and

most simple explanation of

why there is a 29This does

problem of not mean

beings

Arabic;]27

or

^he

an artificial term

to

Greeks, and history, the

the awareness of

least

why in particular Socrates and Plato have become for both Nietzsche and Heidegger, and so many of

This is the

the Greek language

Hebrew

sion of

able

situa

not refuted

or prejudices which make science pos

example, science

Arabic

is

view

the entrance of Greek science, i.e. of science. The

make possible

therewith in

Greek

a particular

ta onto), a thought

medieval

of

in the

questioned

This

the fact that science

language, insights, divinations

those

give

they

be

constitute.

the science which

the Greek

[suggested]25

sible.

by

science,

to epoch, from cul

epoch

which are not questioned and cannot

"objectivity"

the

vary from

and

thought is

all

venomous expres

altogether question

our contemporaries.

why Socrates has become

a

problem,

Socrates.

that the anti-Socratic position

which

I have tried to

be unproblematic, if we could take for historical consciousness, if the object of the historical

delineate is

unproblematic.30

granted the

[so-called]

It

would

History [with a capital H], had simply been discovered. But History is a problematic interpretation of phenomena which could be interpreted differently, which were interpreted differently in former times and especially by Socrates and his descendants. [I will illustrate the fact starting from a simple example. Xenophon, a pupil of Socrates, wrote a history called consciousness, perhaps

Hellenica, Greek history. This "Thereafter."

is.]31

Thus Xenophon

From the

begirrning

begins abruptly with the expression indicate what the intention of this work

work

cannot

of another work of

his (the

Symposium)

we

infer32

gentlemen; hence the the do not strictly speaking of those notorious non-gentlemen, tyrants, [to history, and are appropriately treated by Xenophon in

the Hellenica is devoted to the

serious actions of

belong

excursuses.]33

important[ly]: the what we call which tarache of a

Hellenica1*

History

also

ends, as far as

is for Xenophon

[confusion]

rules.

question

'What

is'

regarding the

a sequence of

Socrates is

different kind; his gentlemanship

possible,35

also a

Thereafters, in

gentleman, but

[raising

More

Thereafter each of

a gentleman

answering the human things. But these 'What is'es

consists

various

in

with

that

actions

and

326

Interpretation

unchangeable,]36

are

the37

recognized:

in

and

Hellenica is only

no

political

"historian"

a

still means

adjective, like economic, art,

[as he

new science

historian, [unless

a political

Still,

and so on]38.

history.

of

upon, philosophy Vico's]39

way in a state of confusion. As a consequence, history. The primacy of political history is still

Philosophy it] is

of

called

a

modem

history is,

begins

history doctrine

doctrine. However this may be, modem history [in know it] deals with all human activities and thoughts,

the

political we

"culture."

[what is called] for instance arts,

are

and

There is

including

highest in

differ from Their

nation

and

they may

cognitive status of

thought

undergo changes

but [there arts]41

[opinions]42 [opinions]42

within nations.

things owing their

of

nomizomena,

a

which

the whole of

highest (the gods); these would call "a culture". These

what we

[but

right, i.e.

the imitative

about the

to nation and

have the

objects43

in

no

is based

form in

with

[Greek]40

the art of moneymaking

[opinions,] doxai, especially

are therefore the

"culture"

or

Vico

with

of natural

add an

we

held,"

frozen results of abortive reasonings which are declared being to be sacred. They are [to borrow from a Platonic simile] the ceilings of caves. What we call History would be the succession or simultaneity of caves. The [caves, the] ceilings are nomoi [by convention] which is understood in contra distinction to phusei [by nature] In the modem centuries there emerged a new

being

to

.

kind

right

of natural

[doctrine]45

Hobbes'

state of nature standard:

law

of reason or

is in

is the best known

no

the

moral

from [this

was

earlier]4*

Nature is here only a nega On the basis of this, the

away.

ceased

called]

point of view as

the historical consciousness, is a

understood as one nomos

tries to understand

phds

example.

"to

(light) in

among many

phusis as

sequence of

nomos

related, not to

has

Let

a

is for him

(to grow) but to being rooted in a human phaos-

above all man's

and

tradition.47

races, the

the surface of the earth) and

lous out

but

size and structure of

as

languages).

[a]

abolition or

in

cf.

Every

philosopher

he

directly to

phusis49

(different

partly to

nomos

belongs essentially to this or that transcend it The prospect of a miracu

philosopher must

.

overcoming of the essential particularism for all men was held different ways by Judaism, Christianity and Islam. A

somewhat

miraculous

also

the issue in somewhat different terms as follows. The human

This is due partly

and

being Heideg

nomoi, phusis

species consists phusei of ethne.

ethnos

law:

follows: History, the

phuein

grow"

tradition,

me restate

(customs

natural

absorbed phusis.

creatively transforming that Nietzsche's Jenseits aphorism 188. 48 past,

to be

way a standard. This is the necessary, although not sufficient, historical consciousness. The historical consciousness itself

characterized

object of

ger

law [as it

the devaluation of nature;

on

of the

condition

may be

is based

that from which one should move

tive

nature

which

non-

overcoming

was visualized

in

modem

quest of nature and the universal recognition of a so

that only the difference of languages

as

important]. In

reaction to this

remains

levelling,

times

by

means of the con

purely50

rational nomos

[which

which seemed

to

[law]

,

Stalin recognized deprive human life

even

The of

its

depth,

instead

ral) to any universal

by by

is

what

began to

philosophers51

probably52

the rights

of

of

prefer

the

problem

particular

of Socrates

(the local

merely accepting the particular. To

the best-known

they

example:

replaced

327

-

tempo

and

illustrate this

the rights of

man

Englishmen.

historicism every man belongs essentially and completely to a historical world, [and he]53 cannot understand another historical world exactly

According

as

to

it [understood

ferently itself is

than

it

it

understands]55

dif

understood

impossible [and only believed in by very simplistic characterizes [all earlier philosophers] all ear

of course altogether

anthropologists].

Yet Heidegger

lier

thought

philosophic

itself

[he necessarily itself. Understanding it better than it

understands]54

or

[understands]56

by

"oblivion

Sein,"

of

of

the ground of grounds:

[which means] in the decisive respect he claims to understand [the better than they understood themselves.

earlier phi

losophers]57

This

is

difficulty

not peculiar

historicism. For historicism

insights, it

it

since

to

claims

to Heidegger. It is

must assert

bring

that

it is

an

to all forms of

essential

insight surpassing

all earlier

to light the true character of all earlier insights:

in their place, if one may put it so crudely. At the same time asserts that insights are [functions of times or periods]59; it sug therefore implicitly that the absolute insight the historicist insight be

puts them

[historicism]58

gests

longs to the

absolute

time, the

even the semblance of

this would

be tantamount to putting

(cf. Hegel, Marx, (all

Nietzsche).60

each epoch

rational;

epochs are

this very

raising

fact,

has its

ion in

at some

which man

[That

In

an end

absolute

time,

or

History, i.e.

(Sein

to significant time

the historical

is

impossible.]

und

knowledge, insight, if

65The

not

Ranke]

God); but historicism has brought

to light

presupposition.

61

According

Zeit 227-230;

not the

ground of all

"Sein"

is

process of

to Heidegger there are no eternal

Einfuhrung

race]62

is

sempiternity of the in die Metaphysik 64)60.

the eternity

or

basis,64

beings,

and

be translated in the

Is

not eternal or sempiternal.

the knowledge that the human race had an

mological

must avoid

for any time; for

remains true

Heidegger knows that [the human this

history]; but it

for all times, for if that insight were future time, this would merely mean a relapse into an obliv has always lived in the past. Historicism is an eternal verity.

of course

race

to

our

presuppositions; [in the formula

verities: eternal verities would presuppose

human

for

other words:

equally immediate to i.e. the truly absolute

The historicist insight

forgotten

[in

absolute moment such a claim

origin,"

least basic, for Heidegger? especially of man, is [said to

not

a cos

at

be] Sein.

than Heidegger

every by "being"; but for Heidegger everything depends on the radical difference be tween being understood as verbal noun and being understood as participle, and would

in English the

verbal

noun

is

case of

writer other

undistinguishable

from the

participle.

I

shall

into Greek, having Seiendes is etant. Sein is on, ens, Latin and French: Sein is einai, esse, etre; not Seiendes; but in every understanding of Seiendes we tacitly presuppose that therefore use the German terms after

translated them once

328

Interpretation

Sein. One is tempted to say in Platonic language that Seiendes is be a only by participating in Sein but in that Platonic understanding Sein would Seiendes. we understand

What does Heidegger it in the

understand

For

following

instance, causality

cannot

Sein? One Sein

manner.

be

begin [at least I

can

cannot

be

Sein takes the

be

categories cannot

explained

in the change; that

lasting

by,

the basis of, one

or on

tal change [fundamental

in different

lasting

which

is

change

change of

the

particular system of

responsible

thought] is Sein: Sein [as he

different understanding

epochs a

the

if there [were] not something for [the] most fundamen

yet we could not speak of change

categories;

to

of

presuppositions

to epoch; this change is not progress or rational

epoch

begin]

Seiendes.

by

explained

*

the categories, the systems of categories, the absolute

from

can

place causally is sense]. This change necessary because

explained

in the Kantian

[surely

the categories

by

mean

of

it]

puts

Sein

and

"gives"

"sends"

or

therewith of

"every

thing."

This is misleading insofar as it suggests that Sein is inferred, only inferred. of Sein we know through experience of Sein; that experience presupposes

But

[however]

a

leap;

and about

except on

it

was

due,

to Sein is

key

is

project: everyone

by

by

the

(or

what

failure to do

so).

by

his

But

who) he is

rather

determinate ideal

They

is finite: the

man

situation which

he has

experienced

is primarily the

abandonment of

understood

in

not chosen:

every thought to

of a

the Sein of

man.

to

Man is

virtue of the exercise of

range of

The

Seiendes

paid no attention

existence, his

man

choices

is

a project which

is

through which Sein is

leap

railing,

is

his

(or his

project

his fundamental

awareness-acceptance of

contradistinction

thought only of

and about

theirs, but to Sein itself.

by

of

thrown somewhere (geworfener Entwurf)60.

be

Sein.

Sein,

one particular manner of

choice of a

ness, the

earlier philosophers and there

oblivion of

to any negligence of

not

freedom, his limited

was not made

characterized

Seiendes. Yet they could not have thought of the basis of some awareness of Sein. But they

this failure

The

leap

that

fore their thought is

being

thrown,

of

finite

(Existence

a support.

must

insistence.)66

Earlier philosophy and espe Sein precisely because it was not

cially Greek philosophy was oblivious of based on that experience. Greek philosophy

by

was guided

an

idea

of

Sein

hand,"

to be present, and therefore according to which Sein means to be "at Sein in the highest sense to be always present, to be always. Accordingly they and

the

their successors understood the soul as substance, as a self

based

on

that is

ideal of

which, if truly

mere

drifting

of existence and

"respectable

is

authentic

"ideal

or shallow

[and

the]67

is

the good

not mere

thing

drifting

project as thrown.

possible without a

dedication to it. "Ideal

opinion of

or

and not as

shallow], [is

No human life

project, without

an

existence"

[this]

of

life"; but

opinion points

takes the to

place

knowledge,

existence"

implies that in this

of

[possible] but only what

self, if

the awareness-acceptance of

not68

whereas

a

what

project, decision.

is

much

higher than

respect

there is no

knowledge

knowledge, i.e. knowledge

of

The The

beings,

ground of all

is

grounds

and

if this is so, Sein cannot be the man, in contradistinction to the different from Sein. [In

radically, stand

the

other

contains

is;

anything

the time

measurable

fore

be

tions. This

being

authentic or

to,

appealed

prior to man

primary time

or made use

argument reminds of

finiteness

the

of

is

the

changeability because, time indispensable to

case of

It

Heidegger

seems

replies

ex nihilo nihil

man and of

fit [out

nothing every being being doctrine of creation [out of Creator-God. [This through nothing, nor

literally

would

denied

by

and can

there

philosophic considera

motion, there

cannot

it] is

have been

meaningful and

world"

creation of

the

and

in the

emergence of

Sein,

or of what

comes out]. nothing].

nihilo].77

Heidegger. But

responsible

could remind one of

come

into

being

This is [of course] it

for

For:

.

But Heidegger has

must

is

out of nothing.

into being] This is apparently omne ens qua ens fit [out of

nihilo

This

what

brings them

comes

suggest, things

ex nihilo et a

one

man."

of

as

follows75:

according to which the God's eternity and un-

compatible with

nothing nothing Heidegger: [he says] ex

by

as

derivative

or

of, in fundamental

"prior to the

"prior to the

to Kant's

in time; for time is or happens only only in man; cosmic time,

thus that one cannot avoid the question as to

the emergence of

questioned

of

a

and arises

being dependent on

speak of

by

given or sent

particular not whether

time when there was no motion. But yet it [seems that even

is

medieval argument

is

world

is

comparable

in

say anything Heidegger also

chronometers, is secondary

by

which

understanding [in this view and

[sempiternal].74

anything

while man

temporal

a ground

is directed

the whole effort

an

are]73

of man

of which one cannot

cannot speak of

not

require]70

the ground of the That. But

not

find that

by71

Sein

The condition[s]

Thing-in-itself, it

words] Sein is

we shall

of

understanding

Sein.72

by

man, [would

But

emergence of

precisely the

and

causes, to its conditions, specific

the

complete ground of man: essence of

this ground of

sempiternal.69

not eternal or

That, Sein? If we try to understand anything we come up against facticity, irreducible facticity. If we try to under That of man, the fact that the human race is, by tracing it to its

That,

not the

man, is Sein

of

especially

therefore also

coeval with man and

329

of Socrates

problem

not

be

no

out of

not

the Biblical

place

nothing

literally

considered

for76

the and

asserted

in its literal

meaning?

Kant found "nowhere

even an attempt of a proof of ex nihilo nihil

fit.78

His

but only for rendering possi necessary (in contradistinction to [what he called] the Thing-

own proof establishes this principle as

ble any

possible experience

he

in-itself)

gives a transcendental

transcendental deduction in its turn

[In the

same

spirit]79

legitimation [of to

ex nihilo nihil

fit. The

the]79

primacy of practical reason. Heidegger80: "die Freiheit ist der Ursprung des Satzes vom points

Grunde."

Accordingly mystery

follows Seiendes

what

Heidegger does

speak of

is the

the reasoning

directly cf.

status of

from these 2

causality

cannot

the origin of

premises:

be

leading

1) Sein

explained

man

he

says

that

it is

to this sensible result? cannot

causally

2)

be man

by being

explained

is the

a

It

330

Interpretation Sein

by

constituted

Sein.

explicability

of

tered

biology

within

Heidegger left

seems

the unintelligibility

ists, using

of

Thing-in-itself

a

(Hegel).81

of nature

man participates

in the

in-

of man which was encoun

(See Portmann) was only an illustration, not a proof. to have succeeded in getting rid of phusis without having

back door to

open a

ophy

indissolubly linked with it The difficulty re: the origin

One

Sein.

could

say

Lukacs,

the sledgehammer

which

and without

he

that

the

being

succeeded

intelligent

most

Lenin had

in

need of a philos

in this

of the

at the price of

Western Marx

used against empirio-criticism,

Lukacs only harmed himself by not learning from Heidegger. He prevented himself from seeing that Heidegger's understanding of the contemporary world is more comprehensive and more profound than mystification.82

spoke of

Marx's (Gestell the claim of

Ware,

him

Ding)83

who claimed

or

to

that Marx

have

surpassing by far Brooklyn bridge. In all impor

raised a claim

sold the

tant respects Heidegger does not make things

obscurer

than

they are. thinking is by reflecting

Heidegger tries to deepen the understanding of what German word for thinking. To this procedure he

on the

makes

the objection

obviously belongs to a particular language, and thinking is something universal; hence one cannot bring to light what drinking is by re flecting on one word of a particular language. He draws the conclusion that

that a German

there remains

word

here

a problem.

means

that historicism even in its

For him

gerian

form

return

to the supra-temporal or eternal but only

contains

for him

Which

a problem.

lie in

a

in something historical: in a understanding life and the world, a meet

meeting of the most different ways of ing of East and West not of course of the on

Heideg

a solution cannot

both

sides

but

of

leaders

opinion pollsters or opinion

deeply

those who, most

rooted

in their past,

reach out

If this is reasonable, our first task apparently unbridgeable the task of understanding would be the one in which we are already engaged the Great Western Books.

beyond

gulf.84

an

I began validity,

that the worth, the saying that Socrates has become a problem problem. the question of the But what he stood for has become a

by

of

worth of what was

for

which

problem of

lem. This write

he

stood

stood.

Socrates in

problem of

85

for,

another sense of

Socrates

stems

on mediators who were at

Socrates

except

Socrates is

through reports

a restatement of what

facie

was

case

willing to be a

in favor

that "we know

of

primary,

question

what

our

knowledge

of

him, i.e.

the same time transformers. These and

Aristotle. Aristotle did

oral or written.

Xenophon

historian,

it

leads to the

the expression, to the historical prob

for

Plato knew Socrates himself. Of these 3 that he

or

indeed from the fact that Socrates did

Aristophanes, Plato, Xenophon,

tors are

that we know already

presupposes

This second,

that we depend therefore

and

thought,

Socrates

said.

men the

was

of

not

his

media

not

know

In

fact, what he says about Aristophanes, Xenophon and

only one who showed Xenophon. This establishes

by

deed

a prima

Xenophon. As for Plato, I remember having heard it said that some of his dialogues are early and hence more

today"

The Socratic than the later ference

which

virtue"

Socrates'

Socrates, with Nietzsche, jocularly and opithen te Platon, messe te Chimaira. At any Platon, eusunoptos

the Socrates

ourselves of

That Socrates

was

philosophers at the gods of the

they 2

city,

manifestly guilty time:

and

2)

1)

that

that

made

phenomena come

the 2 pursuits is not

the

and

about,

liberates from

all

make

The

rhetorike.

For he

by

engaged

which

especially between

service of politics.

prejudices, in

particular

the belief in the

is frowned in

upon

order to

by

in

connection

be in the

that skill also for other, in

This fact

was

Yet:

gods of

the city; the philosopher-physi

defend

himself, his

unpopular activ skill

to

a sense

Socrates'

is

not

knowers,

and not

Adikos Logos,

by

to

another

paternal

or

at

least

that the knowers as

have

little rights

authority father

killing

incest,

the obligation of exogamy, calls

and

marrying

one's mother.

for the

only toward The knower is

obligations

as madmen.

family is constitu by the prohibition

the prohibition against incest

against

one's

and

not

knower than he is to his family. The and

defrauding

the utmost continence

in its pure, ultimate form. This that the tme community is the community of the

the ignoramuses have

one another: much closer

effect

the polis,

lower purposes, like

a man of

that the Adikos Logos who appears on the

alone shows

Adikos Logos is to the

The

prohibition against

expansion of

the

family

into the

is necessary in the first place because the family is to defend itself. But the 2 prohibitions would lack the necessary force

an expansion which

not able

if

the stronger, that

the law courts; his defense is the highest achievement of his

endurance.

polis,

there

not remind

believe in the gods, especially the

weaker argument

the compulsions

2) in

debtors. The Aristophanean Socrates is

ted

myself

do

the Adikos Logos triumph over the Dikaios Logos. Needless to say, he

can use

stage

we

to

ologist needs therefore rhetoric

ity, before

limit

shall

feasible if

clear, for the Aristophanean Socrates

immediately

the city; and this liberation

prosthe

rate, the Platonic Socrates

the Dikaios Logos.

of

altogether unpolitical and rhetoric seems phusiologia

not

the

over

study

frivolously,

the two stock charges made against the

they did

they

1) in phusiologia,

activities:

of

to say of

Clouds.

of

the Adikos Logos triumph

made

heavenly

Aristophanes'

not

much wiser

even

than is the Xenophontic Socrates. I

fore to the Xenophontic Socrates. But this is

indif

he dedicated

and which were not: so much was

the Platonic

is less

331

the Socratic question "what is

did he forget himself. It is

so much

question;

was a matter of complete

or presuppositions of

known to Socrates

were

to

But for Plato it

ones.

implications

of Socrates

problem

there were no gods.

Socrates

subverts the polis, and yet

he

oud'

questions

could not

all

this:

lead his life

esti without

Zeus. He thus

the

polis.

In the

Xenophon does not reply to Dikaios Logos, the polis feeds him. Aristophanes directly. But the 2 main points made by Aristophanes became in a words of the

somewhat

Meletos,

modified

Anytos

form the 2

and

Lykon.

then, if tacitly, Aristophanes re asebeia

By

Socrates'

points

of

refuting the

indictment

formed87

indictment, Xenophon

by

refutes

too.

no phusiologia

but only study

of

tanthropina

yet

Socrates did

332

Interpretation

study nature in his manner ( + the gods of the city) re

diaphthora

proof of

Socrates the

was

law-abiding, he

from

and moderation

even

identified justice

bios

the xenikos

a political man

(on the basis

to the extent to

gathia

the gods

existence and providence of

perfect gentleman

kaloka'

he even taught teia) did not separate wisdom

the

this context, he criticized the established

it

he

egkra-

he

be taught

can

accordingly he

another

he

law-abidingness

with

not viable

which

one88

his

of

then

was

in

even taught ta politika

by lot)

(election

politeia

but this

Socrates'

alleged gentlemanly view to take. Yet we are reminded of handle everyone ton hetto logon kreitto poiein could the fact that he ability by in speeches in any way he liked therefore he attracted such questionable gen

was

a

tlemen as Kritias and Alcibiades

for

responsible

Xenophon's Socrates does

but in

doing

so

he became,

86E.g. his treatment economical

kalon 86

=

=

be very

unfair

Socrates

to make

not a

take the high

road of

kalokagathia

dangerous subversion, but rather friends are chremata ne

a philistine.

Di'

kingly

to the economic

art

art.

utilitarian,

Ultimately:

chresimon

Yet: kalokagathia has

the

not always

reducing the

than one

more

kalokagathia^ Knowledge

by

would

friendship

of

treatment

agathon

possessed

but it

their misdeeds.

of

the ti

in the

gentlemen

What did Socrates

sense.

tanthropina

esti of

such

common sense of the term.

by

understand

knowledge is

not

Xenophon dis

pels any possible confusion on this point by presenting to us one explicit con frontation of Socrates with a kalos kagathos (Oeconomicus 11 nothing of this

kind in Plato). This between Socrates

makes us wonder as

and the

kaloi kagathoi

to the full

in

a

extent

chapter of

of the difference the Memorabilia

devoted to gentlemanship (II 6.35) Xenophon's Socrates tells us what the arete andros is: surpassing friends in helping them and enemies in harming them Socrates'

but in speaking people

andreia

Xenophon does

virtue

does

not occur

conduct

speaks of

this

exemplary justice and he does

Socrates'

under

Socrates'

prowess.

military understanding, believed that

Bumet, people

harming

not mention at all

in Xenophon's 2 lists

Socrates'

Xenophon sumes

of

in

Socrates'

virtues.

of

campaigns

but he

sub

not give a single example of

very low view of Xenophon's like Xenophon and Meno were attracted to who

had

a

Socrates by his military reputation while all we know of that reputation we know through Plato. Socrates was then a gentleman in the sense that he always What is?

considered the examples

of such

which exhort

to

life

or

thought

dealing

things as mad: some

are90

infinitely

esti}9

not present

characterizes

them hold that

many beings;

very few

some of

is'

raising any 'What Xenophon points to the

vice without

with ti

but does

of

gives us

there are many more Socratic conversations

dehort from

The Xenophontic Socrates all

human things. Yet Xenophon

discussions;

virtue or

tion than conversations Socrates'

of

it sufficiently

ques core

of

or at all.

those who worry about the nature of

is only one, others that there them hold that all things are always in

being

The

thing

nothing is

others that

motion,

into

comes

and perishes.

being

in motion;

some of

others that

( i=

these beings

perish.

As Xenophon

other

the tribes (=

the

in

ever comes

never

many but

acquired

was

an

he too

sobria ebrietas

his friends

with them

his

or rather

example of

they found in

this blissful

activity.

tion with Glaukon as follows: sake of

good

friends

he

acquired

the writings of the wise men of old and

them the good things

Charmides the

infinitely many into being and

the

There is only sobriety Xenophon calls Socrates "blessed": when he speaks

madness

which

not

never come

change,

then worry about the nature of all things and to that extent

his

hold that every into being

them

entirely different context Socrates never ceased beings is: the many eternal beings are the 'What infinitely many perishable individuals). Socrates did

says

what each of

things)

nothing

333

sane or sober view of the nature of all

that wiser view there are

beings,

is'es,

ever

perishes,

He thus delineates the

things; according to

considering

and

of Socrates

problem

son of

how Socrates

by

studying

by

Xenophon introduces

Glaukon

of

them

selecting together with but Xenophon does not give a single

them

Socrates

mad; but

was

one occasion on

was well

and

the next chapter reports a conversation of

Socratic

a

conversa

disposed to Glaukon for the

for the

sake of

Socrates

with

Plato.

Accordingly

Charmides. We

are

thus induced to suspect that the next chapter will report a conversation of Soc

Plato. Instead the

rates with with an

Ersatz for

Plato,

is

tion with Plato

Socrates

next chapter reports a conversation of

the philosopher Aristippos: the

peak

conversa

-the

but missing and not because there were no That Book of the Memorabilia which comes closest to

pointed to

such conversations.

presenting the Socratic teaching as such, is introduced by the remark that Soc rates did not approach all men in the same manner: he approached those who had

good natures

way; but the

in

one way and those who lacked interlocutor in that Book, the chief

chief

teaching

presented

nature.

A last

led back the

by

example:

beings;

addressee of the

another

Socratic

is manifestly a youth who lacked a good Socrates used 2 kinds of dialectics one in which he

in this way the truth became human

in

by Xenophon,

whole argument

through the things

good natures

most

in

this

agreement or concord.

to its hupothesin and made clear that manifest.

In the

other

hupothesin;

kind Socrates took his way

generally agreed upon, through the opinions accepted way he achieved, not indeed knowledge, or truth, but

In the

second

kind

of speech

Odysseus excelled; and,

as

frequently cited the verses from the Iliad in which Odysseus is presented as speaking differently to men of worth and to worthless people. Only by following these intimations, by linking them with one another, by thinking them through and by always remembering them the accuser of Socrates said, Socrates

reading how Socrates gave good advice to a poor fellow despair because 14 female relatives had taken refuge in his house

even when near

about to starve

him

and themselves to

death

Xenophon's intimations, I say, can one come to phon saw him. For Xenophon presents Socrates

only see

by

and were

always

the true

also and

who was

remembering Socrates as Xeno

primarily

as

innocent

334

Interpretation helpful to the

and even

Socratic

ordinary kalokagathia

and

intimating

compatible with

^Nothing

is

kind

right

He

meanest capacities.

the difference between

conceals

or, if

law;

therefore necessary to

as much as

is

their conflict.

more characteristic of gentlemen than respect

of

i.e.

as much as possible,

wish, the wrong kind is

you

the question ti

raise

esti

for the

for the law not

nomos; but this

law

at all.

question

is

It is never

by Xenophon's Socrates; it is raised only by Alcibiades, a youth extreme audacity and even hubris who by raising that question discomfited

of

raised

less

a

how

showed citizen

is

Socrates'

than the great Perikles.

man

good a citizen

he

a man who obeys the

failure to

For laws depend

was.

law

independently

according to a more profound view, "good

But,

gime: a good citizen under a chy. law.'

democracy

will

be

on

that question

raise

the regime, but a good

of all changes of regimes.

citizen"

is

a

no

bad

relative

to the re

citizen under an oligar

Given this complication, it is prudent not to raise the question 'what is But, alas, Alcibiades who did raise that question was a companion of

Socrates

at

Socratic

training.

the time

he

raised

Xenophon

it,

and the

way in

which

he handled it

Socrates

admits that

almost

reveals

his

subverted pa

openly for incest, Xenophon's Socrates asserts that incest is for divine law, for incest between parents and children is automatically

ternal authority. As

bidden

by by

the defective character of the offspring, good offspring coming parents who are both in their prime. The Socratic argument is silent from only on incest between brother and sister. Above all, the punishment for incest be

punished

tween parents and children on an oldish

Socrates

husband

comes

very

The Socrates

of

does

differ from the

not

who marries a close to

wife.

young

the Socrates

of

the Clouds teaches the

"punishment"

On this

point

that is visited

the Xenophontic

the Clouds.

omnipotence

of

rhetoric, but this

teaching is refuted by the action of the play. The Xenophontic Socrates could this means that he could not handle handle everyone as he liked in speeches everyone as

his

ing Clouds) of

also as not

is

he liked in deeds. The

accusers. aware of

follows. His

the others

comrade-in-arms

learn

political art with rhetoric.

was able

to rule

gentlemen

but

as

fear; he was Gorgias. Xenophon, however, the gentlemen and non-gentiemen;

Proxenos

naive; he was unable to instil the general unable to inflict punishment; he was a pupil of

him

run of soldiers with

we

is Xanthippe, to say noth the Socrates of the

the essential limitation of speech. Xenophon indicates this

who regarded

86From Aristotle

greatest example

But the Xenophontic Socrates (=

he

pupil of

Socrates,

was good at

that the sophists

Socrates,

we

doing

identified

infer,

was

able

to rule both

as well as at speaking. or almost

was opposed

identified the

to the sophists also

especially because he was aware of the essential limitations of rhetoric. In this important respect, incidentally, Machiavelli had nothing in common with the sophists but agreed with Socrates; he continued, modified, corrupted the Socratic tradition; he was linked to that tradition through Xenophon to whom and

he

refers more

frequently

than to

Plato, Aristotle

and

Cicero taken together.

The This is

of Socrates

problem

335

-

why one should pay greater attention to Xenophon ordinarily does. This lecture consists of 2 heterogenous parts they are held together appar the title "The problem of which is necessarily ambig ently only by uous: the problem of Socrates is philosophic and it is historical. The distinction an additional reason

than one

Socrates,"

between total

philosophic

separation:

made

historical

and

one

historical

one's mind on the

up

having

cal problem without

be avoided, but distinction is

cannot

study the philosophic problem without

cannot

made

problem and one cannot

up

implicitly

one's mind

not

having

study the histori

on

the philosophic

problem.

NOTES

1. The

concern us so much more

by listening

answer

2. Word

in the lecture

omitted

"is"

is

written

"was"

replaces

replaces

6. The 7. A

in

word

as

is

10. A

notation above

This

phrase

11. The

12. A at the

words

is

of

14. The

is

"i.e.

manuscript:

in the lecture

not present

delivered.

as

of

on the

as

replace

line directs

us

(The

ever

been

achieved"

in the

following

written

instead

"Socrates"

"on

which

word

has been

is

in the

of

"there,"

manuscript.

phrase, which is

written at

the human race (utilitarian

delivered. acts of

to insert here the

sentence

have

words are not

manuscript.

"has

will"

in the lecture

the

following

not present

as

delivered.

sentence, which is written

the page in the manuscript. "Science cannot answer the question

This

are written at

word which we

it.) These

error about

collective egoism of

will,"

"on acts,

foundation."

"he"

in the

instead

written

in

the line directs us to insert here the

notation above the

bottom

and perhaps we are

"Nietzsche's"

rests on an irrational

13.

Schopenhauer."

"anti-Hegel,

of

is

the bottom of the page in the ism)"

in the lecture

"est"

achieved"

ever

I

as

manuscript.

has been crossed out. originally "fullest"; the line directs us to insert here the following words, which

instead

written

in the

philosophers"

"anti-"

"His"

8.

far

delivered.

as

"pre-Socratic

as

9. "man has

receive an as

Socrates.'"

disintegrating"

"were

of

is difficult to read, in the lecture as delivered.

present

"Why

delivered.

instead

the bottom of the page in the manuscript:

interpreted

these bracketed ones:

of

to us? There are so many things that

whom

the text was

notation above

instead

relevant

urgently than the problem of Socrates. We I took the title of my lecture and who,

and

in the lecture

"pre-Socratics"

5.

sentences

it be

should

obviously man from

to the

"disintegrated"

4.

Why

the expression 'the problem of

coined

remember,

3.

following

manuscript contains the

be interested in it?

should we

in the lecture

as

'why

science':

it

delivered.

manuscript.

added above

line, is

the

omitted

in the lecture

as

deliv

ered. replaces

16. The

keeping Also, Plato

the

and

17.

18.

"a

added above

manuscript contains

end of

the

therewith with

"points"

here the

paragraph):

in the lecture

as

delivered.

the line to replace

has been

following

"one"

which

made plural

sentence,

which

"In the Preface to Beyond Good

Socrates, Nietzsche

it

says as

were

by

has been

has been

and

"sends"

is [inadvertently] written instead of in the lecture as delivered. replaces

"spends"

"the"

is"

"it"

"his"

Evil,

in passing

added above "this"

replaces

the line.

in the lecture

as

delivered.

in

crossed out.

In

the addition of the final "s".

(see, how taking issue with

crossed out when

'Christianity

people.'"

19. "it

20.

words

few"

with this addition, the word

ever, the

for the

"Symposium"

"Banquet'

15.

the manuscript.

is Platonism

336

Interpretation "Nietzsche's"

21.

lecture

as

delivered, however,

22.

"the"

23.

"Probably."

is

is

is

the reading "all"

instead

written

again manuscript.

"Perhaps."

instead

written

in the

of

manuscript. truism"

24. "a truism for many replaces "for many people a 25. is written instead of in the manuscript. people"

"supplied"

"an"

26.

is

is

original

in the lecture

delivered.

as

"suggested"

instead

written

27. "inaccessible

ible in

In the

"the."

in the

of

which

replace

crossed out.

has been

"the"

line to

added above the

of

in the

to original Hebrew or

e.g.

Arabic:"

Hebrew

simple"

"a

or

only above the line. 28. The remainder of this

manuscript. thought:"

Arabic

is

written

instead

"original"

in the

Also,

manuscript.

the

of

"inexpress

in the

word

manuscript

added

here

fifteen

paragraph

is

in the lecture

omitted

delivered. The tape contains

as

the only sound is that

of shuffling pages. during preceding paragraph, the manuscript has the marginal notation "turn to 8" sheet (in Professor Strauss's own hand). Accordingly, the editors have chosen to omit, for the time being, a large portion of the lecture and to continue instead from the beginning of sheet 8. At

a pause of about

29. At the

which

seconds

end of the

is

the end of sheet 10 of the manuscript, there notation points

This

omitted

appears to

lecture sheet

end of

however,

30. This

and thus also to

to as directed

is

here in the

continues

be

certain

(A

oral presentation.

sentence

4b,

Since the tape breaks

we cannot

Professor Strauss's

on sheet

by

further justified

omitted

before the

off

of

from the lecture

delivered

as

the fact that the

occurrence of

the second marginal

the omitted section was

indicate

subsequent note will

by

that we are presenting it (i.e. from

manner

how much, if any,

That

the omitted portion of the text.

that later notation, continues to what

the lecture. Our editorial procedure is

of the manuscript).

notation,

one,

which we will return

portion,

be the

present

delivered in Annapolis

as

8

back to the

4b."

notation, "Continue

another marginal

where

and replaced

included in

the tape breaks off.)

by

the two

"We have to pay some attention to this question of historicism, that is to say in the first place. The anti-Socratic position, which I have tried to delineate, is not sentences:

following history

of

unproblemati

'Thereafter'

31. The cannot

sentence

indicate

what

"Xenophon's Hellenica begins abruptly with is." is written instead the intention of his work

of these

thus

Xenophon

four bracketed

sen

tences in the manuscript.

32. The

Symposium)"

"(the

words

by

are also omitted and replaced

33. The

it."

"in

words

are written

"one

"belong

34. "this

35. The

written

work"

replaces

37.

of

history,"

"to

Xenophon in

in the

Also, instead

manuscript.

excursuses."

the

of

"the

Hellenica"

in the lecture

manuscript contains

of

the

delivered.

as

possible"

"as far

"considering

is

as

'Thereafter"

the 'What

omitted

is followed

is'

by

in the lecture

as

delivered.

Instead,

the phrase "within the limits of the

the

next

possible."

unch

the human things, these 'What is'es

of

is

being

these bracketed words in the manuscript.

"Xenophon's"

"the"

in the lecture

replaces

38. "(=

the words "we

and

the line.

above

phrase

instead

delivered,

excursuses"

in

occurrence of the word

36.

by

as

infer."

can

instead

the words "and are appropriately treated words

in the lecture

are omitted

infer"

economic

historian,

historian

art

as

delivered.

is

.

written

instead

these bracketed

of

words

in

the manuscript.

39. "yet 40.

his"

41. "technai words

42.

in the

written

is

instead

written

(including

of

instead

"but

is

words

In the lecture

of

45.

as

in the

in the

manuscript.

manuscript.

mimetike)"

chrematistike

written

"Their

is

and

as

instead

"opinions"

of

in

written

instead

added above the

delivered, however,

line to "They"

the word

being us

"They"

replace

is the

these bracketed

held"

added at

to insert this

the

phrase

which

is

written

instead

classical"

is

written

"doctrine"

of

instead

of

"this

in the

has been

crossed

one used.

bottom

here,

and

the page in the manu it is included here in the

of

delivered.

"teaching"

46. "the

of

the manuscript.

objects"

44. "of things owing their being to script. A notation above the line directs

lecture

Vico's"

"Greek"

manuscript.

"doxai"

43. The out.

is

"classical"

manuscript.

earlier"

in the manuscript.

The 47. A

notation above

the line directs

to insert here the

us

following

the bottom of the page in the manuscript: "das Gewachsene

in the lecture

not present

48. These last few lecture 49. 50.

51.

as

which are written at

words,

Gemachte."

das

=

337

of Socrates

These

words are

delivered.

as

lines, beginning

the

with

tries,"

"Heidegger

words

are omitted

from the

delivered.

"nature"

replaces

"phusis"

"purely"

in the lecture

"philosophers"

probably"

from the lecture

omitted

we"

is

instead

written

54. "understands

he"

"and

of

understood"

is

or

55. "we necessarily

"men"

the line to replace

added above

"

delivered.

as

line.

added above the

52. "what is 53.

problem

understand"

is

in the

instead

written

written

has been

which

crossed out.

delivered.

as

manuscript.

"understood

of

instead

of

understands"

in the

or

manuscript.

understands"

in the

"he necessarily

manu

script.

56.

"understood"

57.

"them"

58.

"it"

is

is

62.

"it"

instead is

sentence

is

begins

63. "the knowledge that the human manuscript.

the

lecture

A

notation above

race

in the

of

as

periods"

times

in the

or

manuscript.

delivered.

manuscript.

race"

in the

manuscript.

origin"

had

bottom

added at the

an

the line directs us to insert this phrase

not

basis"

the

"if

replaces

65. Professor Strauss indicates

here,

the page in the

of

it is included here in

and

by

not the

basis"

in the lecture that the

delivered.

as

following

section of the text, four paragraphs, written on two separate sheets, belongs here. This section here in the lecture as delivered. It replaces the following sentences, which have been

includes

also occurs

"functions

of

manuscript.

manuscript.

delivered.

as

64. "is this

which

in the

"Yet"

the word

"the human

of

in the

from the lecture

omitted

with

instead

written

instead

written

is

manuscript.

philosophers"

earlier

"historicism"

periods)"

or

in the

of

"the

of

of

entire parenthesis

61. This

"understands"

instead

written

instead

written

59. "f(times

60. This

is

written

over

"The

crossed out.

a marginal notation

beings,

ground of all

and

especially

of

man, is Sein

But if

coeval with man and therefore also not eternal or sempiternal.

complete ground of man: the emergence of man

this ground of grounds is

this

is so, Sein

be the

cannot

the essence of man) requires a ground differ

(+

not the ground of the That. To this one can reply as follows: the That of man is necessarily interpreted in the light of a specific understanding of Sein of A subsequent note will indicate the end of this understanding which is given or sent by interpolated section.

ent

or

from Sein. Sein is

its

condition

Sein."

66. This

is

entire parenthesis

from the lecture

omitted

"insistence"

probably using the

word

here in its older,

delivered. Also, Professor Strauss is

as

and

Latinate,

"standing

sense of

or

resting

upon."

a"

67. "is resoluteness, i.e. the in the manuscript.

is

awareness-acceptance of

instead

written

of

these bracketed

as

delivered.

words

68.

"not"

is

inadvertently

69. "sempiternal 70. 71.

"requires"

is

"by"

73. 74.

"is"

is

is

the

instead

editors

end of the

written

"aidion"

replaces

written

by

added

72. This is the

from the lecture

omitted

instead

written

replace

interpolated of

"in this

instead

for"

76. "has

no place

77. The

symbol

this sentence in the the words "omne

78. A

"

"

"of in the

manuscript.

manuscript and

in the lecture

in

note

by

Also,

as

delivered.

65.

are"

in the

view

in the

manuscript. manuscript.

follows"

replies as

the line to

in the lecture

"denies"

which

replace

as

"ex

nihilo et ab nihilo omne ens

the words "qua

ens"

are

delivered.

has been

fit."

followed

manuscript.

is

crossed out.

written

instead

of

written, but then crossed out, after

ens."

notation above

the bottom

in the

section which was mentioned

"also

added above

in the lecture

require"

"sempiternal"

replaces

delivered.

or

of

reply"

75. "mentions this

"would

of

to

"eternal

as

sempiternal"

eternal"

or

of the page

words are not present

the line directs us to insert here the

in the

manuscript:

in the lecture

as

following

words,

which are written at

"Grundsatz der Beharrlichkeit der

delivered.

Substanz."

These

338

Interpretation symbol "

79. The

bracketed words in the manuscript. delivered in Annapolis breaks off (cf. note 29). Accordingly, we have only Professor Strauss's manuscript of the remainder of the lecture. 81. Beneath the line here there are added two distinct groups of words in the manuscript. The "

80. Here is

first,

begins

which

is

written

instead

of these

the tape of the lecture

where

the

under

as

"Thing-in-itself,

word

The top line is "(Kant) nature 'an for Heidegger and Nietzsche: no Beyond or

lines,

consists of two

the

underneath

one

The bottom line

sich' unknowable."

other.

appears

to be "but

Without."

(This line, and especially the word which we is difficult to read, and perhaps we are in error about it.) The second is "nature as is found underneath the words "philosophy of nature

"for,"

have interpreted

as

(Hegel)"

group mind

of

Anderssein."

in its

82. A written at

if

notation above

is the

which

questionable

83. The the

of

the line directs us to insert here the

the page in the

discovery

Heidegger

of the

claims to

life

of

have discovered is

presuppositions, than the ",Ding"

following two sentences, which are "Heidegger has something to do with mysticism the deity in the depths of the human heart. But the

manuscript.

meant

(with the preceding comma) is

word

to be

deeper,

and

less based

on

God."

mysteries of written underneath

the word

"Ware"

in

manuscript.

84. A at

bottom

the

mysticism

mystery

which

words,

notation above

the line

directs

us to

insert here the

following

sentence,

the bottom of the page in the manuscript. "In this way, and only in this way,

the universalist

85. Here, 4b,"

have

at

the trans-national or trans-cultural

following

far. At the

sentence,

tion of the

nearly the

beginning has been

which

Socrates

worth of what

know in the first

29,

place what

same as the one

of

directs

us

this portion of the

philosophy."

for,

which

immediately

back to the

lecture,

portion of the

a new paragraph

"Continue

lecture that begins

we

the

with

"However this may be, can one answer the ques formulate it, if one does not

crossed out: stood

it is for

that

and which

written upholds

of

the end of Professor Strauss's manuscript, occurs the marginal notation

to which we referred in note omitted so

intention

is

which

Heidegger

nay, can one properly

he

stood."

As the

precedes

reader will

notice, this sentence is

the marginal notation, "Continue

4b."

Ac

cordingly, in turning now to this omitted section, we have chosen not to begin a new paragraph. 86. No indention in the manuscript, although the previous line appears to be the end of

a

paragraph.

87. It is 88.

possible

"one"

added

89. The

words

that Professor Strauss wrote the

by

the

"than

"are"

added

by

the

here instead

"formed."

of

editors.

conversations

manuscript.

90.

"framed"

word

editors.

dealing

with

ti estr are

added

beneath the line in the