Strauss Existentialism and Problem of Socrates Integral
Strauss Existentialism and Problem of Socrates Integral
DAVID BOLOTIN
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 o f Classical Political Rationalism: An Introduction to the Thought o f 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,
302
Interpretation
"Existentialism,"
was
delivered
by
Professor
Strauss fourteen
"The problem of
Socrates."
They
are,
however,
by
Professor
so
Strauss's
we
Heidegger,
at
least
far
as
know,
have accordingly
chosen
to present them
here
together.
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,
by
copy of a typescript with additions, correc Professor Strauss's own hand. The original of this
a can
in
typescript,
be found in
the
Strauss
ar
chives at the
version where
University
while
of Chicago. We have
in the text,
indicating
in
However,
he
have
pre
corrected a
of punctuation,
we
We have
liberty
of correcting,
to
without
are grateful
Hein
rich and
help
in
deciphering
Professor
Strauss's handwriting.
A
more
heavily
seen
edited version
of this
lecture, based
on a typescript that
having
sical
previously published, under the title "An Introduction to Heideggerian Existentialism, in The Rebirth of Clas
was
"
been
by
Professor Strauss,
of
cago: pp.
University
1989
by
The
University
2746. We have
in
This
should
series of
lectures
a reminder of
of modem man
help
particular
facing
the perplexities of
reminded
Existentialism has
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
that tive
man who who
objects,
about
loses himself completely in the contemplation of mathematical knows nothing about himself and his fellow men, in particular defects. The
thinking2
his
own
man
is
not a pure
mind, a
The3
question what am
would mean
I,
or who am
pointer-reading cannot be an
self-forgetting
1995
by
The
University Spring
of
reserved.
interpretation,
304
Interpretation
who
Theodoruses
have
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.
examining
honestly,
without
tence of scientific
knowledge, is
a
school
more
helpful than
science.
'Existentialism is
of philosophic
thought.
The
name
is
not
like
Platonism, Epicureanism,
ment
and
Thomism. Existentialism is
like
This is
deceptive.5
Existentialism
alone
its
overriding
thought in
to a single
man:
Heidegger. Heidegger
thought as
and
brought
all
in
philosophic
is revolutionizing
Germany, in
continental
Europe,
is
beginning
to affect even
Anglo-Saxony. I
am not surprised
by
he
made on me when
as a
Up
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,
by
his
passionate
of
science,
was
where
whose
always
be
remembered
in
said
formed
in
Existentialism,
and
I told him
appeared
of
Heidegger. I
Heidegger,
Weber
to
me as an orphan
before
such
seriousness, profundity,
in the interpretation
of
philosophic
Charity
compels me
to
limit the
comparison to the
remark7
comparison. was
Gradually
revolution
of
thought
Heidegger
our own
eyes
my
generation.
We
saw with
such phenomenon
in the
world
since
Hegel. He
of
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
time in
the
established schools
had
eyes.
a pupil of
who
neo-
Kantian
school.8
Cohen had
elaborated a system of
was ethics.
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
is impossible fact
opens
and
his
whole
being
was permeated
by
the
pher
up I would say the outstanding German philosopher was Edmund Husserl. It was Heidegger's critique
which
an abyss.
German
philoso
of
Husserl's
phenom
enology
criticism consisted
in
Existentialism
radicalization of once said
305
Husserl's
Briefly,
as8
Husserl
the10
to
me who
the
Marburg
neo-Kantian
school,
philosophical
schools, but
they
the
mistake of
beginning
Marburg
analysis
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 of
that pre-scientific
understanding. a
The
meaningful genesis
of
understanding is sensibly
the
philosophical
understanding began
with
in the
first
thing.
According
to Heidegger
Husserl
sensibly
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 The horizon
within which
of
use.12
Husserl had
analyzed
derstanding
the
by
referring to the fact that the inner time belonging to be understood if one abstracts from the fact that
by
man's
mortality.
The
and
in
continental
Europe
as a whole.
from
All
rational13
liberal
philosophic
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.
Only
great
a great
thinker could
help
us
in
our
intellec
is the
great
is
Heidegger.
The only
ger's
question of
importance
is the is
question whether
Heideg
teaching is true
great
Kant16
or not.
question
is deceptive because it is
competent
of5
of who
to judge. Per
haps only
thinkers.
distinction between
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
at
also
that
most people
mostly,
great
best,
The
scholars.
The
scholar
is radically dependent
problems without
not
thinkers,
faced the
being
covered"
authority.
to
our sight
in,
to
us
bold. He does
not
mists as
306
while
Interpretation
the great thinkers are so bold
they
are;
they
We
scholars
live in
charmed
lems
the
by
circle, light-living like the Homeric gods, protected against the prob the great thinkers. The scholar becomes possible through the fact that
thinkers disagree. Their disagreement their differences
creates a
great
possibility for
more
us
to
to
reason about
for wondering
which of
them is
likely
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
cannot exclude
ture
the
character18
of whose
has in
no
provided out
by
our schemata.
For
who are we
possibilities?19
In brief,
reasoning
of
about
understand oP what
The
through the
of
intermediacy
books. If he is
great thinker
intermediacy
faces the
directly.
saw
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
a
form
work. a
judgment
about
the
significance
as well
as
the truth
of
Heidegger's
that
Because this
work changed
the intellectual
orientation so
radically21
long long
in
adequacy
The
most
and
a most general
what
this
work means.
The
more
understand what
Heidegger is aiming at the more I see how much stupid thing I could do would be to close my eyes There is became
a a not altogether unrespectable
was not
to reject his
work.
justification for
above the
doing
so.
Heidegger
on
due to
a mere error of
judgment
the
on great
heights high
book
lowland23
of politics.
Everyone
the trees
who
had
his first
great
and
did
not overlook
could see
the
kinship
in temper
and
thought and the Nazis. What was the practical, that is to say serious meaning of
reasonableness and
the
except
When Heidegger
was
rector of which
the
University
not yet
Freiburg
with
in 1933 he delivered
that speech
an official speech
in
he identified himself
Germany. his
dared to in
mention
in the
on
otherwise complete
of
his writings, he
which appear
Yet8 195325
recent publications.
which
book, lectures
spoke of
dignity
he
of
ment. rected.
In the The
preface written
in
195325
had been
cor
case
of
Heidegger
naturally,
Nietzsche.
Nietzsche,
have
sided with
and
an undeniable
kinship
fascism. If
Existentialism
as
307
passionately be
as
Nietzsche
with
a27
did26
well as will
democracy
view
intimations
of
the
It is
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
not even
blond beast. Passionate say nothing of is absolutely in order but it is not sufficient. Are there no dangers threatening democracy
to prepare us
for
our
situation:
the decline of
Europe,
the danger to the west, to the whole western than that which threatened
era.
heritage
which
is
at
least
Mediterranean
And30
civilization
around
300
of
the Christian
It is
childish
to
organization
is
an answer even
to the
political problem.
31
and5
democracy: it
and5
France
the
commercials
logical
They
merit of not
sending
of
men
into
described the
change which
had been
effected
in the
second
half
of
the
nineteenth
ing day
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
the same
destiny,
thing, the same reminder of but every day something new with
men's
absolute
no reminder of
duty duty
destiny. Specialization,
knowing
less
and
less,
impossibility
universality,
of concentration upon
essential
man's wholeness
entirely depends
specialization compensated
by
sham
by
let
me
look for
a moment at
the Jewish
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
problem.
means
to blur and to
seems at
conceal grave
price of
differences. Cultural
all edges.
only be had it
not
the
blunting
It
would
critics of
us as
thinking beings
to listen to the
enemies of
thinking
As
men and
you
provided
they
are
fools.
appeals
to
a certain experience
(anguish)
as the
basic
experience
in the light
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
by
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 uneasithe
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
felt
uneasiness
man.
however is equally generally admitted in our time: the vaguely must be regarded as essential to man, and not only to
present5
day
non.
Let
us assume
Yet this vaguely felt uneasiness is distinctly a present day phenome however that this uneasiness embodies what all earlier ages
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
to an older interpretation of that uneasiness is possible. Now this
view
is
a second
accepted
today (apart from the fundamental uneasiness which is faced); this second element is the belief in progress.
well
known
expression
more and
less
less.'
and
mean?
It
means
modem science
has
the
not
kept the
promise which
it held
out
from its
beginning
up to the
end of
nineteenth century:
verse and
the truth
about man. of
memorable
document
which made
and which
assertion
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
in
ways that
increased
man's power
former
use5
men never
lutely
incapable to tell
men
how to
that power.
and
him
and
whether
it is
wiser
to
use
that
power
beneficently
in
foolishly
own
unable
to establish its
mean-
ingfulness
We
or
to
answer
the
is
good.
bulk is
say
ever
increas
ing,
which
in itself has
no meaning.
If
a scientist would
as
Goethe's
would
Mephisto
still said
he
be
talking
as a scientist
but
was34
making
a value
judgment Someone
from the
is
altogether unwarranted.
has
spoken of a
flight from
scientific reason.
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
for
all
values,
gone.
universal we
tolerance, is
science
the
dictate
of scientific reason.
Today
draw
hear that
ity
of all
values; that
does
not
legitimate
nor
should
rational conclusions
from
scientific
findings. The
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
scientific reason
is35
flight
of5
science
Existentialism
from5
309
his
reason
from the
is
a rational
being
who perverts
being
does
if he does
It
goes without
judgments has
no
progress except
in the
humanly
irrelevant
cept of progress
replaced
by
the concept
of change.
If
sufficiently
selves to
nal: one
science,
in
effect
that the
is
may
right pleasing
and otherwise
satisfying
Furthermore,
does
no
longer
conceive of
itself
on
as
human understanding36; it
which will always remain rest on evident necessities.
admits
that it is based
hypotheses. The
is
any
alternative orientation. as
But
what else
does
this
except that
the ground of
his
his
choice of science
groundless choice
an abyss. on
For
a sci
interpretation
orientation,
the one
hand,
The fundamental freedom is the only Everything else rests on that fundamental free Existentialism. itself
as well as poor and stupid positiv we not
dom. We
are
midst of
might
science
against
by
are of course
a rational
drop it,
asked
philosophy for which poetic, emotional Existentialism is myself for a long time where do I find that rational
and where of
which
I If
philosophy?19
philosopher who
dares
being
and the
the
good
life?19
Naturally
we can sit at
the
feet
phers of
old,
of
of
Plato
as
and of
Aristotle. But
or
doctrine
ideas
he intimated it,
dare to say that Plato's Aristotle's doctrine of the nous that does
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
not exposed
blow
on
enough
to
remind
them
of
the
inspiration that
Considering
the
profound
appeal proper
past, is it possible to
to them
is taken
The
called
Weltanschauungslehre, theory
mitted
of comprehensive
place of rational
teaching
avail-
310
able
Interpretation
in any
of
the
great thinkers of
that37
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
superior
means
idea
as
of
the
the
has
always understood
it. It
means
just
in
presuppositions
is
of
groundless;
we are
thus
led39
to the abyss of
such
doctrine
that the
fundamental
at
is
its
end.
Furthermore there is
a radical
analyst of
does
not
directly
and
does
them
answer
only,
and
the great
created
in their primary meaning, viz. as pointing to one thinkers themselves. He is separated from them by a his
pretended can we as
deep
gulf which
is
by
knowledge
of
to
the thinkers
he is in
as8
and
they
have been
understood
if
one
is to
are
order not
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 disagreements among the
will rational philosophers
be
profound
in
all other re
of
regarding human conduct. There is only one doctrine41 of comprehensive the predicament in which the
happily
agree
and that
is to find the
ground of
views
in the human
If
one takes
soul or more generally stated in the human condition. indispensable step one is again already at the threshold of
Existentialism. There is
another
very
common
way
of
the
of
highest
principles
if the meaning
the
itself depends
on values.
Now it is impossible to
overlook
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
the
principles5
of our
lar, in something
or relative to the
empire?19
which exists.
Existence
that the
For
do
in
they
say,
e.g.
Stoic
law teaching is
decay
of the
Greek
polis and
As I
said,43
sometimes people
try
to avoid the
difficulty indicated by
saying impossible
are the
for
serious men.
We
cannot
help
raising the
question as
To
society
means
face
his
own
choice, to mn
away from
one's
Existentialism
self.
-311
To find the
solution
values of our
society, because
they
are
society
means
to make philistinism a
duty
The
uneasiness
which
not
faced
can
be
expressed
by
Existentialism
admits
the truth
of relativism
but it
real
izes that
relativism so
far from
being
a solution or even a
relief, is deadly.
Existentialism is the
their own
relativism.
jective,
rational
knowledge
to
we
discover
in the last be
he
analysis
have
no support except
All truth, all meaning is seen man's freedom. Objectively there This
nothingness can
is in the last
analysis
only meaninglessness,
but this
made
nothingness.
experienced
in
anguish
experience cannot
find
an objective expres
originates
sion:
because it
cannot
be
freely
meaning,
originates
the
horizon,
project,
ideal,
the project
within which
understanding
Man is
man a
by
virtue of such
horizon-fonning
of an
unsupported
project, of
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
can call
and
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
authentic oneself
way means to be in an authentic way is incompatible with being false to others. Thus
with44
others:
to be true to
exist
a
the possibility of
strictly formal
ethics.
be,
Heidegger
never
in the world; to
accept
the things
within
factual
being
(and
as
merely
factual;
to risk
oneself
despising
is in this
are.
Only
if
man
themselves to him as
narrows
they
The
that
an artificial
he
must
be
aware
if he
wants
dangerously
ultimately
to think exposedly.
are
facticity help
do
or contingency.
not able and even compelled to raise the question of the causes of ourselves and of the things
Where45
in the
world?
Indeed
we cannot
and
Whither,
or of
we
Man
cannot understand
himself in the
irredeemable47
light
of the whole,
in the light
of
of
his
origin or
his
of
end.
This
his lostness
or
the core
the human
situation.
By
312
Interpretation
assertion existentialism restores man's
making this
of objective
Kant's
notion of
the
unknowable
thing-in-itself and of
of
his freedom
at
the limits
knowledge
and as
in
exis
tentialism there is
no moral
law
It becomes necessary to
make as
fully
explicit as possible
the character of
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
analytics of
outset as
Existenz. Heidegger
conceived of
from the
and
up
again
Plato's any
Aristotle's
said
by
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 be primarily
addressed
being
is
to
be?19
Heidegger
agreed with
Aristotle
to that
while
being
which
is5
in the
and
most emphatic or
the
most
authoritative way.
Yet
according to Plato
to be always, Heidegger
contends
be in the highest
is: to be
to exist, that
sense
is to say, to be in the
manner
in
which man
in the highest
is
constituted
by
mortality. of existence.
Philosophy
Is then the
rational
thus becomes
essential
analytics
Analytics
of
existence
of existence.
Philosophy
the
new
in
spite of the
difference
of
content, objective,
analytics of subjec
tivity? Does
knowledge,
complete
philosophy too take on the character of absolute knowledge, final knowledge, infinite knowledge? No
ideal
of existence.
must
One
from
to
a neutral point of
view; one
have
made a
is
not subject
examination
in
order
to be open to the
of absolute
phenome
non of existence.
Man is
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
which
of
truth.48
To
speak
in
general
terms,
rational
by
is
the distinction between the objective which is true and the subjective
opinion
(or
an equivalent of this
tialism
formerly
what
with
superficial
problematic;
was
formerly
called
subjective
reveals
itself
as
pro
found
The
tenz;5
assertoric,
great
achievement
Existenz.5
Heidegger
was
experience of of
coherent exposition
Existenz.5
based
on
the
essential character of
Kierkegaard had
the
horizon,
i.e.
within
distinction between
tence out
of
horizon
itself.
Existentialism
Yet the
analytics
of existence was a exposed
313
which
to serious difficulties
new
fundamentally
basis,
that is to say,
these difficulties.
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
tian origin
analytics
(conscience,
the
guilt,
being
unto a
death,
specific
anguish).
2)50
of existence was
based in the
on
ideal
wonder whether
fundamentally
while
arbitrary.
analytics
of existence
no to
had
culminated
be
no
truth and
hence
be, if there
be beings
are no
human
beings,
are no
there can be
beings (for
4
example
the
sun and
should
that
by
virtue of which
beings
of
are.
The highest
yet
form
of
knowledge it
was said
to
be finite knowledge
not seen
finiteness:
of
how
can
finiteness be
other words
seen as was
finiteness if it is
said
infinity?19
Or in
necessarily
presuppose awareness of as
the
whole?
Hocking
stated
this
difficulty
poses
neatly
follows: desespoir
rather
presup
love; is
fundamental
phenomenon?
Is therefore These
objections which
ultimately loves, God, the ultimate ground? Heidegger made to himself were fundamentally the
made
Hegel had
to Kant. The
of
relation of
Heidegger to
objections
his
own existentialism
is the
same as
that
physics, Plato
return
and
Aristotle. This
is
is
rejected
by
Heidegger. The be
to
metaphysics
is impossible. But
on an
needed
plane.
is
what metaphysics
the5
intended
entirely different
Existence
by
virtue of which of
beings
to
are. all
Existence
are.
must rather
be
understood
in the light
that
by
virtue of which
beings I have
From this
point of view
the
subjectivism.51
partake of modem
compared
of
was aware
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 be
expressed as
follows. Existentialism
man, the final
claims
to
essential character of
insight
which as
belong
to the final
time, to the fullness of time. And yet existential a fullness of time: the historical process is unfinwill
be
historical being.
its
In
other
words
does
its
own
historicity,
of
of western man.
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
can
be
seen
to be liberal democracy.
uncertain of
liberal
has become
of
itself
or of
Europe
or of the a
West.52
insight has
grave
consequences.
Let
us
moment
to
Hegel.
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
meant
united
for Hegel that it belonged to the post-revolutionary state, to Europe under Napoleon non-feudal, equality of opportunity, even free enter
government not
which
dependent is the
of
on
the
will of
reasonable will of
each,
the rights of
of
the
a
dignity
head
by
first final
rate and
society.
highly History
Soci Pre
had
come
to its
end.
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
history
is the
beginning
of
the decline
of
Europe,
of
west and
therewith,
of
have been
absorbed
into the
west, the
beginning
is
no
future for
mankind.
Almost
Hegel's conclusion,
no one more
powerfully
working
society
over
the
Orient53;
of man who
the
full
potentialities of
each,
on
the basis
having become completely collectivized. The man of the is perfectly free and equal is so in the last analysis because
all
world
society
seen goes
all specializa
tion,
division
of
to be due ultimately to
labor has been abolished; all division of labor has been private property. The man of the world society
paints at
hunting
in his
in the forenoon,
noon,
philosophizes
in the afternoon,
of all
works
garden after
the sun
has
set.
He is
a perfect
jack
trades. No one
questioned
fied the
the
man of
the
extreme
degradation
European
energy society as the last man, that is to say, as This did not mean however that Nietzsche As
he
saw
accepted
all continental
in
tent
completion of
democratic
egalitarianism and of
freedom
communism
the consis
is
looking
alism.
merely defensive positions are doomed. All merely backward positions are doomed. The future was with democracy and with nation
were regarded
And both
by
Nietzsche
as
incompatible
with what
he
saw
Existentialism
to be the task of the twentieth
age of world wars,
century.
-315
He
saw rule.
leading
up to planetary
exercised
If
man were
to have a
future,
have to be iron
by
a united
enormous
tasks
of such an
possibly be discharged, he thought, by weak dependent upon democratic public opinion. The new
new5
nobility,
and
nobility formed
reason also
by
a new
most obvious
meaning
for this
the
most superficial
his
notion of
the super
human
face the
mlers of
of
invisible
philosophers5
is
as
Nietzsche. This is
Plato's5
not to
deny
Nietzsche him
Plato had
seen
to have thought, of
question
as5
For
the
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
as and perhaps more
features in
Nietzsche
Plato's
philosophy. an
Nietzsche's
philosopher54
of
the future is
an
heir to the
Bible. He is
heir to that
deepening
of
by
the biblical belief in a God that is holy. The philosopher of the future as distin
guished
from the
be
concerned with
be
religious. an
This does
he be
atheist, but
for
a god who
and
has
the biblical
is waiting faith
world
also
outside
world
especially because the biblical God as the creator of the the world: compared with the biblical God as the highest
is
good
the
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 loyal to the earth; that there is nothing concern to us be it god or ideas or knowledge
outside of
or
be
of
any
be
certain
by
by
faith.
Every
of
concern
for
such a ground of
the world as is
the world in
which man
lives,
alienates man
from
and
his
world.
Such
concern
is
rooted
in the desire to
perplexing is rooted in
character of
reality, to cut
comfort. shook
it
desire for
sense
progress
in its
the
decayed. The only people who kept that faith the communists. But precisely communism showed to
non-communists
seemed
at
Spengler's
Is there
no
and therewith
mankind?
316
It
was
Interpretation
in the
spirit of such
became disappointed
united
and withdrew.
for55
hope that Heidegger perversely welcomed 1933. He What did the failure of the Nazis teach
a united
for55
Europe
not
but
revitalized
by
had
proved
by Washing
not make a and
ton or Moscow
to be
approaching. or
difference
this
whether
Washington
Moscow
would
"America
Soviet Russia
world
same."
are
metaphysically the
society is to him
means
it the "night
of
the
world."
It
indeed,
and
as
of an evermore
urbanized,
complete
evermore
levelling
of
it is brought
by
iron
compulsion or
means
self
unity
soapy advertisement of the output of mass production. It the human race on the lowest level, complete emptiness of life,
by
perpetuating
no
reason;
no
leisure,
no
no concentra
tion,
no
elevation,
no
withdrawal, but
crowds."
work and
recreation;
individuals
and
peoples, but
"lonely
How
can
there be hope?
which cannot
be
satisfied
there
the noble, for the great. This desire has expressed itself in
previous
ideals, but
all
ideals have
The
old
proved
societies.
ideals
the power, to
master5
the
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
power of
men are
genuinely
united
by
a world religion.
steadily
undermined as
far
as
by by
the
progress
towards a technological
world society.
But
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
each regards
the
others as man
This is
very
promising.
On the
other
hand,57
untrue.5
world religion.
He
can
only
prepare
becomes
tion.
receptive
to it if he thinks
it
to it. And
and
he
himself
his
situa
Man's
humanity is
threatened with
by
technology.
Technology
at
is
and rationalism
is the fruit
of
philosophy is the
same
condition of
impasse5
the possibility of
technology
therefore
the
time of the
created
by
technology.
There is
of
of modem
philosophy.
Greek
phi
losophy
was
the attempt to
Existentialism
the whole
"317
is intelligible,
the disposal of
or
ligible:
at
man as man
man.5
that
they
are
always5
and therefore
in
This
view
is the
bility
ing58
of
human mastery
of the whole.
consequences are
drawn,
to the ultimate
But that mastery leads, if its ultimate degradation of man. Only by becom
can we of
aware of what
have hope.
Transcending
viz.
the limits of
rationalism requires
discovery
Rationalism is based
to
understanding
always
of what
being
means,
that
be
means
in
the
highest
be
present, to be
always.
This basis
of
rationalism proves
to be a
dogmatic
assumption. spite of
Rationalism itself
rests on
power,
rationalism
is hollow:
to
rationalism
itself
rests of
be
be
elusive or to
understanding be
being
is intimated
This is the
by
the
a mystery.
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
the east.
The
west
has to
make
its
own
contribution to the
within
overcoming
of
itself that
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
No
genuine
the level
of present
day
thought
is
possible on
vocal,
of
most
glib,
the
both
The meeting
man who
only be
meeting
of
the deepest
both.
has
an
inkling
of
thinker
can prepare
that
roots of
descending59
to the deepest
seen
by
ments
in Heidegger's
one
thought.) But
Eastern60
rightly
understood.
Biblical thought is
form
of
thought.
By taking
as
lute,
one
blocks the
us,
us
access
to other
forms
of eastern
is
as
the east
within
within61
western man.
eastern can
in overcoming Greek rationalism. help The deepest root of the west is a specific understanding
being. The specifically
the
used ground of grounds was
of
being,
a specific
experience of
western experience of
being
led to the
consequence that
ence of
forgotten
of
the
in
318
Interpretation
western experience of
being
em
makes possible
in principle,
being.
By
opening
west-
being
we
and to
the problematic
character of
the
understanding only
of
being,
The
not
may gain access to the deepest root of the east. is indicated by the word being will be the ground any
possible gods.
but
even of
From here
one can
begin to
understand
the possibility
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
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
understands
and
NOTES
"compare"
.
has been
changed
by
hand
by
end of
"warning"
is the
editors'
left
uncorrected
in the typescript.
added
2. begins
"thinking"
by
hand to
"theoretical"
replace
which
has been
"observer,"
instance,
the.
"
The
have been
changed
by
hand.
of the old paragraph
4. Continuation
with a marginal
indication
by
hand
for
a new one.
5.
Underlining
"Weber's"
added
6.
added
by hand. by hand to
"his"
replace
which added
remark"
comparison
to the
by
"to
say"
which
has been
8. Word
added
(in the
margin or
replace
"the"
between the
"the"
lines) by
has been
9.
11
"in"
added
word
by
hand to
which
crossed out.
10. The
.
"that"
before
has been
replace and
"indicated"
by
hand to
"meant"
has been
crossed out.
use"
12. The
added
"pragmata"
by
hand.
"rationalistic"
13. The
"istic.''
word
has been
changed
to
by
hand
by crossing
"
out the
14. The
"am"
"I'm"
word
has been
replaced
by
"I
am"
by hand, by
crossing
out
'm
"
and
adding
above
the line.
added
by
hand to
"about"
replace
which
"Heidegger"
has been
which
crossed out.
"Kant"
added
another
by
hand to
replace
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 18.
which
Thomas Pangle
worked
Rationalism.
"character"
added
by
hand to
replace
which
has been
crossed out.
19. The
question mark
has been
added
by
Existentialism
20. "of 21. The
added
319
by hand
"about"
to replace
changed
which
has been
crossed out.
word order
by
hand. The
original
the intellectual
orientation."
way"
a most general
added words
by
hand.
which
"low
land"
a single word
by
work"
added
by
hand.
"1952"
by
in the typescript.
26. The
"as Nietzsche
have been
"as"
replaced
by
"as passionately
"does"
as
Nietzsche
"did"
did"
by hand, by
the line.
adding
added
"passionately
hand to
as"
after
and
by
crossing
out
and
adding
above
27. 28.
of
"a"
by
"the"
replace
which
has been
crossed out.
period at
"to"
has been
changed
by
hand
by
the end
"nobility"
is the
editors'
uncorrected
in the typescript.
added
29. 30.
"his"
by
hand to is
"the"
replace
which
has been
crossed out.
"and"
has been
changed
by
hand
"problem"
previous word
a correction
The
by
hand.
words
"as
follows"
have been
by
hand.
"this"
added
"was"
added word
by by
hand
to replace
replace
"the"
which
"is"
has been
crossed out.
hand to
which
has been
crossed out.
35. The
"is"
has been
added
by hand,
by
referred to of
in
note
"mind,"
by
hand, instead
words
"understanding."
37. The
of
"we
cannot refer
to the true
is
admitted
have been
added
Professor Strauss's hand. 38. The typescript 39. The hand to 41. 40. The
referred
"sciences"
word are
instead
led"
of
"groundless"
semicolon after
thus
have been
added
by
replace
"and leads
"him"
us"
word
before
crossed out.
"doctrine"
editors as a
is the reading of the typescript referred to in note 17. It is included which appears in the primary typescript. correction for the word
"doctrines," "Yet"
by
the
42. The
word
before
"our"
has been
letter in
"Our"
inserted
by
hand.
said,"
43. "As I
removed
added
by
hand. A
capital
letter
at the
beginning
"sometimes"
of
by
the editors.
added
other
44.
"with"
by
hand to
"to"
replace
which
has been
crossed out.
"Whence"
45. The
46. The 47. The
deemable."
17 has the
word
"whence,"
instead
"Where."
of of
word
to in
note
17 has the
"irremediable"
word
"irre
truth"
The
editors suspect
reading.
48. The
words
"about
"the"
subjective
"about,"
have been
replaced
by
by hand, by
letters 50.
"ity"
adding
above word added
after
the
line,
and
49. This
"2)"
is
enclosed
the final
"e"
"subjectivity"
by
and
by
hand to
"Secondly,"
replace
which
has been
crossed out.
51. Quotation
jectivism."
marks
by
an unknown
hand,
around
the
words
"modern
sub
words words
"or
of
have been
"Orient"
added
by
hand.
"Occident"
and
which
by
hand
above
"east,"
and
320
54. adding 55.
Interpretation
"philosophy"
has been
line.
changed
by
hand to
"philosopher"
by
crossing
out
the final
"y"
and
"er"
above the
added
"for"
by
hand to
fact"
replace
"of
which
has been
hand.
crossed out.
These
"the
have been
very
"man"
added
by
57. The
capital
"This is
not
promising.
On the
hand,"
other
have been
added
by
hand. A
letter
the
beginning
of
has been
removed
by
the editors.
"man"
word
before
"becoming"
has been
crossed out.
"dissenting"
has been
replaced
by
"descending"
by hand, by
crossing
out the
letters
"is-
"escend"
and
adding
capital word
above
the line.
"Eastern"
letter
at
the
beginning
of
by
hand.
"within"
before
"western"
has been
by hand,
by
Pro
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
version published
earlier version):
The title is different, and the first p. 29, line 32: Instead of
p.
sentence
is missing in the
earlier version.
"Heidegger"
and
inserts
a short
p. p. p.
30, line 5 of the second 31, line 22: Between 38, line 25: After
another
differently
in the
present version.
"era"
"Nietzsche"
inserts three
sentences.
"that"
new completion of
full
sentence.
After this
insertion,
the
"the,"
word
capitalized, begins
p.
present version
has
a sentence worded so
differently
to change
p.
43: The
one-sentence paragraph
beginning
with
is the only
man
is in
paragraph
remainder of
this paragraph,
beginning at the bottom of the page. beginning with the words "The ground of
a
all
as problem of
well
Socrates,"
Introduction.
The
problem of
Socrates
Leo Strauss
"The
the
Socrates"
problem
of
was
delivered
as a
lecture
on
on
Annapolis
campus
Professor
ginia,
Jenny
of St. John's College. Professor Strauss's daughter, Clay, of the Department of Classics at the University of Vir
has generously
a tape
Also,
made available to the editors a copy of the manuscript. recording of the lecture in the St. John's College library in An
editors,
as were copies
of an
anonymous
after about
transcrip
forty-five
Unfortunately,
the tape is
broken off
minutes,
with
nearly
half of the
manuscript still
lecture
which
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
sometimes appears to
be
superior
to it.
Thus,
we
have
the manuscript as a
basis for
our
as
delivered merely
and where we
have included
these in
brackets. In the
other
differ have
have
in
in the lecture
cases we
as
delivered,
we
again
have
also
included the
where we
manuscript version
In the
case
of
those
discrepancies
have
have
included it in the
in
a note.
text without
brackets,
have included
on
All italics
and paragraphs
are
based
the manuscript.
note
indicates
Strauss'
where
the tape is
on
broken off,
manuscript
compelled
to
rely
the
We have
clarity.
In those few
cases where we
have
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
which appear
in the
original
Greek in the
generous
manu
Finally,
we are grateful to
help
in
deciphering
A
within a
small portion
of this lecture has been published previously, incorporated different lecture and in a somewhat modified form, in The Rebirth of
of
Leo Strauss
1995
by
The
University
of
reserved.
interpretation,
Spring 1995,
22, No. 3
322
Interpretation
(Chicago:
University
pp.
of Chicago
Chicago]),
[I
was
44-46.
paper
has
announced that
I lecture
tonight on
"The
problems of
This
was an
Socrates,
engaging printing error; for there is more in the first place, the problem with which Socra
with which
Socrates
was
may be
of no concern
not
be
relevant.
many things
Socrates
was concerned.
Socrates'
receive an
listening
far last
as
why we should be concerned with to the man from whom I took the title of this
was coined
problem
by
as
lecture,
and
which,
I remember,
by
him.]1
"The
Socrates"
problem of
is the first,
immediately
Socrates
in
revealing title
of a section
publications.
was a
Socrates
and
decadent
who
in Nietzsche's Dawn of Idols, one of his we hear, were decadents. More precisely, Plato, belonged to the lowest stratum of the common
people, to the
riff-raff.
[I quote:]
"Everything
is exaggerated, buffo,
caricature
him,
ranean."
everything is at the same time concealed, rich in afterthoughts, subter The enigma of Socrates is the idiotic equation of reason, virtue and
an equation opposed to all
and nobility. quest
happiness
instincts
and2
of
the earlier
Greeks,
of
[the]
Greek health
The
key
is
supplied
by
Socrates'
discovery
by
of
dialec
for
reasons.
The
earlier
for,
and
conduct. was
authority,
by
themselves,
have
Only
those
people
recourse
for getting listened to and respected. It is a kind of revenge which high-bom. "The dialectician leaves it to his adversary he is
not an
idiot. He
help
of
form
the noble
youth of
Athens
and
among
surety,
was4
Plato. In
an age when
the
ancient
[were
disintegrating]3,
cure
tyrant; this
also of
tyrant
reason.
Yet the
belongs
to
as
When speaking
of the earlier
Greeks,
Nietzsche thinks
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
[so-called]
illusion
"historical
sense."
Nietzsche's
in reality,
cure
for
all
Platonism
age
and
hence Socratism
without
was at all
had the
cour
to face reality
and to
and not
in its
sophistic
expression.
The
of
Socrates in the Dawn of Idols is only a relic out of the Spirit of Music
The
which stood
problem
of Socrates
he Had
323
under
he disowned to
some extent
later on,
one reason
being that
[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
order].
In
work
delineates his
future life
amazing
as
clarity.
that.]
Nietzsche
paints
Socrates
"the
single
turning
world-history."7
[Nietzsche's]8
cerned with
the
future
of
Germany
that
man
must surpass
been
before. The
peak of
hitherto is that
expression
in Greek tragedy,
especially in Aeschylean tragedy. The understanding of the world was rejected and destroyed by Socrates, who therefore is "the most questionable
antiquity,"
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
of nature and
light."
in the
universal
healing
power of
knowledge
He is the is
not
prototype of
the
rationalist and
therefore of
for
optimism also
world, but
merely the belief that the world is the best the belief that the world can be made into the best of
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
being
but
it; life
deus
can
be
guided
by
science; the
living
gods of
myth can
be
replaced
by
ex
of nature as
known
since
and used
in the
service of
"higher
Rationalism is optimism,
it
reason's power
is
riddles
and
loosen
depends initial
on the
belief in
presupposes
or
final supremacy
full
and
ultimate consequences of
the
by
Socrates
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
pacifism, and
socialism.
Both these
consequences
essential
limitations
of
of science
man
have
shaken
"Socratic
culture"
Socratic
has
gone."
There is then
hope for
the
future that is
but
knowingly
a philosophy of longer merely theoretical [as all philosophy hitherto was] or on decision. based on acts of the
peak of pre-Socratic
,
will11
culture, for
attack on all
Socrates is
an attack on reason:
reason, the
celebrated
prejudices, proves itself to be based on a prejudice, and the the prejudice stemming from decadence. In
so
dangerous
of all prejudices:
which
other words,
reason,
waxes
easily
rests
and
so
highly
indignant
about
the demanded
sacrifice
of the
intellect,
itself
324
'Interpretation
lect.12
This
by
obscurantism and
fundamentalism.
misunderstand the utterances of Nietzsche on
One
which
would
therefore
Socrates
referred
if
one
did
not
keep
in
mind
the
fact that
Socrates
perhaps attempt
tes]13
life-long fascination
passage
on
Nietzsche. The
most
beautiful docu
and
ment of this
fascination is the
most
penultimate aphorism of
Beyond Good
Evil,
in Nietzsche's [whole] work. I do not dare to translate it. Nietzsche does not mention Socrates there, but [Socra
the
beautiful
is there. Nietzsche
says
there14
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 power
few16 points. The serious opposition of Nietzsche to Soc only a be expressed as follows: Nietzsche replaces eros by the will to
Symposium15
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
a and
[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
none"
all and
[as it
says on
the
impor Plato
Evil,
it
when
were
taking issue
in
passing:
with
therewith
with
Socrates,
Nietzsche
says as
"Christianity
interpreter
and at
interpreter
[precisely]
takes
because he is his
may be indicated
profoundest critic.
as
The direction
which
his
criticism
follows. In
animating
his18
spoken of
the
spirit of revenge as
all earlier
of revenge
is
is19
escape
time, from time to eternity, to an eternal being. Yet Nietzsche return. For Heidegger there is no longer eternity in any
and therewith
it
sempiternity in any relevant sense. Despite of this or rather be Nietzsche's21 condemnation or critique of Plato as this20, he preserved
the originator of what came to be modem science and therewith modem tech
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 nology.
almost
"purest"
ciently
To
aware of the
Odysseus in Socrates?
Socrates'
[Perhaps.]23
But he surely
sees the
connection
between
way in
come
no
purity and the fact that he did not write. back to Heidegger's tacit denial of eternity, that denial implies
singular
which
that
all
there is
History-
The
problem
of Socrates
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
emerged
24
people a truism.
define it based
as
radically than anyone else. Let us call this view follows: historicism is a view according to which vary from
epoch
which are not questioned and cannot
and all
thought is
be
questioned view
in the
situa
they belong
of
and which
they
constitute.
This
is
not refuted
by
the
"objectivity"
science,
by
down,
all cultural
barriers; for
Greek
science.
by
[suggested]25
a particular
language;
sible.
To
give
[a
simple]26
example, science
knowledge Hebrew
or
of all
beings
(panta
ta onto), a thought
[inexpressible in
philosophers
original
Arabic;]27
^he
to
medieval
Jewish
and
Arabic
had to invent
an artificial term
make possible
therewith in
particular
Socrates
and
Plato, lacked
the awareness of
historical
sion of
consciousness.
This is the
least
venomous expres
able
why in particular Socrates and Plato have become for both Nietzsche and Heidegger, and so many of
most simple explanation of
altogether question
our contemporaries.
This is the
problem,
unproblematic.30
[so-called]
be unproblematic, if we could take for historical consciousness, if the object of the historical
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
work
Thus Xenophon
cannot
begins abruptly with the expression indicate what the intention of this work his (the
is.]31
From the
begirrning
of another work of
Symposium)
we
infer32
that
gentlemen; hence the the do not strictly speaking of those notorious non-gentlemen, tyrants, [to history, and are appropriately treated by Xenophon in
serious actions of
actions
belong
More
excursuses.]33
important[ly]: the
what we call which tarache of a
Hellenica1*
also
ends, as far as
possible,35
with
Thereafter
each of
History
is for Xenophon
rules.
a sequence of also a
Thereafters, in
and
[confusion]
is'
Socrates is
gentleman, but
a gentleman
consists
question
various
in
[raising
326
are
Interpretation
and
unchangeable,]36
in
no
the37
Hellenica is only
a
political
way in a state of confusion. As a consequence, history. The primacy of political history is still
a political
recognized:
"historian"
still means
historian, [unless
modem
we
or
add an
and so on]38.
Still,
of a
history is,
with
is based
of
history. [as he
new science
called
Philosophy it] is
history
doctrine
begins
Vico
[but
a
of natural
right, i.e.
political we
doctrine. However this may be, modem history [in know it] deals with all human activities and thoughts,
"culture."
the
form in
which
with
the whole of
are
There is
"culture"
no
in
[Greek]40
thought
but [there
arts]41
including
and
the imitative
and
what we
[opinions]42 [opinions]42
differ from
Their
to nation and
they may
within nations.
objects43
have the
held,"
cognitive status of
nomizomena,
of
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
tive
of natural
right
[doctrine]45
which
is based
on
Hobbes'
state of nature
standard:
example.
away.
law
of reason or
called]
to be
natural
law:
nature
is in
no
condition
of the
way a standard. This is the necessary, although not sufficient, historical consciousness. The historical consciousness itself
may be
characterized
from [this
earlier]4*
object of
among many
nomos
has
absorbed phusis.
being Heideg
phaos-
tries to understand
phusis as
related, not to
phuein
phds
(light)
in
a
"to
grow"
is for him
tradition,
and
cf.
also
Let
me restate
directly to
phusis49
(different
nomos
races, the
partly to
(customs
ethnos
and
languages).
Every
he
but
as
[a]
philosopher
lous
out
abolition or
in
somewhat
overcoming of the essential particularism for all men was held different ways by Judaism, Christianity and Islam. A
was visualized
non-
miraculous
overcoming
in
modem
times
by
purely50
rational nomos
[law]
remains
[which
even
important]. In
reaction to this
levelling,
which seemed
to
The
of
problem
of Socrates
and
327
its
depth,
is
philosophers51
began to
of
prefer
the
particular
(the local
tempo
instead
illustrate this
man
by by
what
probably52
the best-known
they
replaced
the rights of
the rights
of
Englishmen.
historicism every man belongs essentially and completely to a historical world, [and he]53 cannot understand another historical world exactly
According
to
as
it [understood
than
or
understands]54
ferently
itself is lier
it
[understands]56
itself
understands]55
it
dif
understood
of course altogether
anthropologists].
philosophic
Yet Heidegger
thought
impossible [and only believed in by very simplistic characterizes [all earlier philosophers] all ear
"oblivion
Sein,"
by
of
of
losophers]57
[which means] in the decisive respect he claims to understand [the better than they understood themselves. This
difficulty
since
is
not peculiar
to Heidegger. It is
that
essential
to all forms of
all earlier
must assert
it is
an
insight surpassing
insights,
it
it
claims
to
bring
puts them
[historicism]58
gests
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
absolute
longs to the
this would
time, the
raising
[in
our
history]; but it
time,
or
must avoid
for
to
be tantamount to putting
Nietzsche).60
History, i.e.
to significant time
In
other words:
the historical
is
not
each epoch
has its
absolute
Ranke]
to light
(all
epochs are
this very
fact,
forgotten ion in
[That
at some
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.
remains true
is
impossible.]
61
According
the eternity
human
this
race
(Sein
und
Zeit 227-230;
Einfuhrung
is
race]62
Is
not
mological
knowledge, insight, if
would
a cos
at
65The
"Sein"
ground of all
beings,
and
be] Sein.
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
case of
be translated in the
than Heidegger
in English the
verbal
noun
is
undistinguishable
from the
participle.
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
mean
by
be
can
can
begin]
to
it in the
following
cannot
manner.
cannot
explained
by
Seiendes.
of
For
instance, causality
explained
the categories
[surely
in the Kantian
change
from
epoch
the
change of
the
categories cannot
be
explained
by,
or on
particular system of
categories;
lasting
lasting
which
is
responsible
it]
"gives"
"sends"
or
in different
thing."
epochs a
different understanding
Sein
therewith of
"every
But
This is misleading insofar as it suggests that Sein is inferred, only inferred. of Sein we know through experience of Sein; that experience presupposes
a
[however]
and about
leap;
that
leap
by
the
characterized
by
oblivion of
Sein.
They
thought only of
except on
Seiendes. Yet they could not have thought of the basis of some awareness of Sein. But they
was
and about
Seiendes
to
paid no attention
it
this failure
due,
not
to any negligence of
The
key
to Sein is
Sein,
Man is his
(or his
project: everyone
is
what
(or
rather
who) he is
by
freedom, his
failure to do limited
choice of a
so).
of
existence, his
But
man
range of
his fundamental
man
choices
is is
by
his
situation which
not chosen:
is
a project which
The
leap
is primarily the
in
awareness-acceptance of
of a
being
thrown,
of
finite
must
ness, the
abandonment of
every thought
to
railing,
a support.
(Existence
be
understood
contradistinction
insistence.)66
cially Greek philosophy was oblivious of based on that experience. Greek philosophy
by
an
idea
of
Sein
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
hand,"
thing
or
and not as
the
which, if truly
self, if
authentic
[and
not mere
drifting
shallow], [is
based
that is
on
the awareness-acceptance of
mere
the]67
project as thrown.
No human life
an
not68
drifting
or shallow
is
possible without a
of
project, without
takes the
to
ideal
of
of existence and
existence"
[this]
place
"respectable
"ideal
opinion of
of what
life"; but
knowledge,
knowledge
of
existence"
whereas
there is no
is
higher than
is
project, decision.
The
The
grounds ground of all
problem
of Socrates
329
beings,
and
especially
of
man, is Sein
this ground of
is
therefore also
not eternal or
sempiternal.69
But
the
emergence of
man, [would
not
require]70
a ground
words] Sein is
is
That,
radically,
stand
the
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
and
precisely the
we shall
find that
an
is directed is
by
understanding
of
Sein
by71
by
it
Sein.72
The condition[s]
anything
of man
given or sent
are]73
comparable
to Kant's
Thing-in-itself,
contains cannot speak of while man
in
replies
as
follows75:
one
anything
being
prior to man
is;
authentic or
primary time
is
and arises
the time
measurable
by
to,
of
chronometers, is secondary
or made use
derivative
and can
there
fore
not
be
appealed
of, in fundamental
philosophic considera
tions. This
temporal
argument reminds of
the
medieval argument
finiteness
the
world
is
compatible with
being dependent on
"prior to the
motion, there
it] is
the
indispensable to Heidegger
of
world"
speak of
creation of
case of
"prior to the
man."
emergence of
what
It
seems
is
responsible
for
the emergence of
ex nihilo nihil
Sein,
or of what
brings them
out of nothing.
.
For:
fit [out
questioned
by
of
comes nihilo
into being] This is apparently omne ens qua ens fit [out of
the Biblical
for76
comes out].
nothing].
This
place
the
and
suggest, things
nihilo].77
into
being
out of
nothing
ex nihilo et a
not
literally
asserted
literally
denied
by
Heidegger. But
it
not
be
considered
in its literal
fit.78
meaning?
His
but only for rendering possi necessary (in contradistinction to [what he called] the Thinglegitimation [of
to
the]79
in-itself)
[In the
he
gives a transcendental
ex nihilo nihil
fit. The
primacy of practical reason. Heidegger80: "die Freiheit ist der Ursprung des Satzes vom
points
speak of
Grunde."
Accordingly
mystery
Heidegger does
the origin of
man
he be
says
that
it is
what
is the
status of
the reasoning
premises:
leading
It
follows
Seiendes
directly
cf.
from these 2
cannot
1) Sein
explained
causality
be
explained
causally
2)
man
is the
by being
330
Interpretation
constituted
by
Sein Sein.
explicability
tered
within
of
man participates
in the
in-
biology
seems
Heidegger left
open a
(See Portmann) was only an illustration, not a proof. to have succeeded in getting rid of phusis without having
a
back door to
Thing-in-itself
could
and without
being
in
need of a philos
ophy
of nature
(Hegel).81
One
say
that
he
succeeded
in this
at the price of
the unintelligibility
of
Sein.
Lukacs,
which
the
most
intelligent
of the
Western Marx
ists, using
spoke of
the sledgehammer
Lenin had
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
Marx's (Gestell
the claim of
Ware,
Ding)83
or
that Marx
raised a claim
him
who claimed
to
have
sold the
obscurer
on the
Heidegger tries to deepen the understanding of what German word for thinking. To this procedure he
word
the objection
that a German
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
there remains
gerian return
here
a problem.
Which
means
Heideg
lie in
a
form
contains
for him
a problem.
For him
meeting of the most different ways of ing of East and West not of course of the
on
leaders
both
sides
an
but
of
deeply
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
I began
validity,
by
of
that the worth, the saying that Socrates has become a problem problem. the question of the But what he stood for has become a
Socrates he
stood
85
for,
presupposes or
what
it
for
which
stood.
This second,
stems
primary,
question
leads to the
problem of
Socrates in
another sense of
lem. This
write and
problem of
Socrates
knowledge
of
him, i.e.
not
of
his
thought,
tors are
media
know
Socrates
through reports
oral or written.
Socrates is
that he
was
a restatement of what
Xenophon
said.
men the
historian,
was
by
deed
a prima
facie
case
in favor
Xenophon. As for Plato, I remember having heard it said that some of his dialogues are early and hence more
The
Socratic than the later ference
virtue"
problem
of Socrates
331
indif
ones.
which were
implications
or presuppositions of
known to Socrates
question;
so much
he dedicated
to say of
prosthe
to
Socrates'
much wiser
Socrates, with Nietzsche, jocularly and opithen te Platon, messe te Chimaira. At any Platon,
is less
eusunoptos
the Platonic
even
frivolously,
limit
we
there
feasible if
do
not remind
the Socrates
was
of of
That Socrates
gods of the
manifestly guilty
time:
philosophers at the
1)
that
they did
made
over
city,
and
2)
that
they
the
the
weaker argument
they
2
made
For he
engaged
in
activities:
1) in phusiologia,
study
and
of
by
which
heavenly
phenomena come
about,
2) in
to
The
connection
especially between
was
immediately
all
be in the
particular
service of politics.
Yet:
liberates from
prejudices, in
upon
gods of
is frowned
in
by
order to
defend
himself, his
ity, before
make can use
to
the Adikos Logos triumph over the Dikaios Logos. Needless to say, he that skill also for other, in
a sense
defrauding
and
a man of
This fact
Socrates'
alone shows
is
not
Adikos Logos,
effect or
in its pure, ultimate form. This that the tme community is the community of the
not
least
knowers,
and not
the polis,
have
obligations
little rights
as madmen.
ted
by
paternal
against
killing
one's
authority father
and
marrying
one's mother.
The
incest,
polis,
for the
expansion of
the
family
into the
not able
is necessary in the first place because the family is to defend itself. But the 2 prohibitions would lack the necessary force
Socrates he
oud'
if
questions
all
this:
esti without
Zeus. He thus
polis.
could not
the
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
somewhat
modified
form the 2
Lykon.
Socrates'
points
of
indictment
formed87
by
Meletos,
Anytos
and
By
refuting the
of
indictment, Xenophon
tanthropina
yet
refutes
too.
no phusiologia
Socrates did
332
Interpretation
proof of
the
the gods
diaphthora
Socrates the
kaloka'
perfect gentleman
of
his
egkra-
gathia
to the extent to
it
can
be taught
he
then
and moderation
from
with
one88
another
accordingly he
law-abiding, he
even
identified justice
law-abidingness
he
was
a political man
the xenikos
bios
not viable
he
in
politeia
(election
by lot)
Socrates'
but this
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
but it
would
be very
unfair
to make
Socrates
for
their misdeeds.
not always
road of
kalokagathia
a philistine.
but in
doing
so
he became,
of
not a
friendship
utilitarian,
treatment
=
reducing the
chresimon more of
kingly
art
to the economic
art.
Ultimately:
kalon
86
agathon
than one
the ti
sense.
understand
by
not
kalokagathia^ Knowledge
possessed
esti of
tanthropina
knowledge is
by
the
gentlemen
in the
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
makes us wonder as
to the full
extent
and the
kaloi kagathoi
in
chapter of
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
but in speaking
people
Socrates'
of
virtue
Xenophon does
harming
virtues.
andreia
does
not occur
in Xenophon's 2 lists
conduct
of
Xenophon
sumes
Socrates'
speaks of
Socrates'
this
under prowess.
in
campaigns
but he
sub
Socrates'
Bumet,
people
very low view of Xenophon's like Xenophon and Meno were attracted to
who
had
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
considered the examples
What is?
of
gives us
very few
is'
of such
discussions;
which exhort
to
virtue or
dehort from
dealing
with ti
ques
core
of
life
or
thought
but does
not present
it sufficiently
characterizes
of
are90
infinitely
many beings;
is only one, others that there them hold that all things are always in
being
The
motion,
others that
problem
of Socrates
333
nothing is
and
ever
in motion;
some of
them
thing
comes
into
being
perishes,
others that
nothing
ever comes
and perishes.
things; according to
many but
not
beings,
perish.
these beings
( i=
other
things)
never
change,
never come
As Xenophon
says
considering
what each of
is'es,
his
the tribes (=
the
entirely different context Socrates never ceased beings is: the many eternal beings are the 'What infinitely many perishable individuals). Socrates did
an
in
the
then worry about the nature of all things and to that extent
madness
he too
was
mad; but
which
one occasion on
of
how Socrates
acquired
his friends
or rather
his
good
friends
he
acquired
them
by
studying
with them
they found in
activity.
them
by
this blissful
Xenophon introduces
was well
Socratic
Plato.
conversa
Socrates
Glaukon
Charmides the
son of
and
for the
Accordingly
are
Socrates
Charmides. We
thus induced to suspect that the next chapter will report a conversation of Soc
rates with with an
Socrates
Ersatz for
Plato,
conversa
is
pointed to
such conversations.
but missing and not because there were no That Book of the Memorabilia which comes closest to
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
in
chief
one way and those who lacked interlocutor in that Book, the chief
good natures
in
another
addressee of the
Socratic
teaching
nature.
presented
by Xenophon,
A last
example:
is manifestly a youth who lacked a good Socrates used 2 kinds of dialectics one in which he
to its hupothesin and made clear that
manifest.
whole argument
hupothesin;
In the
other
by
human
beings;
in
this
generally agreed upon, through the opinions accepted way he achieved, not indeed knowledge, or truth, but
second
agreement or concord.
In the
kind
of speech
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
even when near
reading how Socrates gave good advice to a poor fellow despair because 14 female relatives had taken refuge in his house
who was
and were
about to starve
him
and themselves to
death
only
see
by
always
Xenophon's intimations, I say, can one come to phon saw him. For Xenophon presents Socrates
the true
also and
primarily
innocent
334
Interpretation
helpful to the
and meanest capacities.
and even
He
conceals
Socratic
ordinary kalokagathia
as much as possible,
i.e.
as much as
is
compatible with
intimating
or, if
their conflict.
^Nothing
right
is
for the
It is
never of no
kind
of
law;
you
law
at all.
therefore necessary to
raised
raise
the question ti
question
is
by Xenophon's Socrates; it is raised only by Alcibiades, a youth extreme audacity and even hubris who by raising that question discomfited
less
a
man
Socrates'
failure to
on
raise
that question
showed
citizen
how is
he
was.
law
independently
will
But,
chy.
law.'
citizen"
is
relative
to the re
democracy
be
bad
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
at
Socrates
the time
he
raised
it,
and the
way in
which
he handled it
reveals
his
Socratic bidden
training.
ternal authority. As
punished
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 tween parents and children
on an oldish
by by
openly for incest, Xenophon's Socrates asserts that incest is for divine law, for incest between parents and children is automatically
Xenophon
almost
admits that
Socrates
subverted pa
does
not
"punishment"
that is visited
husband very
of
On this
point
the Xenophontic
Socrates
comes
the Socrates
of
the Clouds.
of
The Socrates
omnipotence
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
greatest example
ing Clouds)
of also as
not
his
is
accusers. aware of
follows. His
Proxenos
was able
to rule
gentlemen
but
the others
who regarded
him
naive; he was unable to instil the general unable to inflict punishment; he was a pupil of
as pupil of
Socrates,
was
able
to rule both
he
was good at
doing
as well as at speaking.
or almost
86From Aristotle
and
we
learn
identified
identified the
Socrates,
we
infer,
was opposed
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
he
refers more
frequently
than to
Plato, Aristotle
and
The
This is
an additional reason
problem
of Socrates
335
than one
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
Socrates,"
between
total
made
philosophic one
and
historical
cannot
not
separation:
cannot
having
up
historical
made
having
up
one's mind
implicitly
on
NOTES
1. The
should we
following
should and
sentences
instead
of
"Why
be interested in it?
to the
Why
it be
relevant
answer
by listening
coined omitted
whom
urgently than the problem of Socrates. We I took the title of my lecture and who,
Socrates.'"
far
as
remember,
2. Word
in the lecture is
written
as
delivered.
of as
3.
4. 5.
"disintegrated"
instead
"were
disintegrating"
in the
manuscript.
"is"
"was"
replaces
"pre-Socratics"
in the lecture
delivered.
philosophers"
replaces
"pre-Socratic
in the lecture
as
delivered.
6. The 7. A
word
in
notation above
has been crossed out. originally "fullest"; the line directs us to insert here the following words, which
"est"
are written at
"anti-Hegel,
Schopenhauer."
(The
word which we
have
interpreted
present
"anti-"
in
error about
it.) These
8.
"His"
is
written
instead
"Nietzsche's"
of
in the
of
manuscript. ever
achieved"
ever
is
written
instead "i.e.
"has
been
achieved"
in the
manuscript. written at
notation above
following
phrase, which is
collective egoism of
This
phrase words
is
not present
in the lecture
as
delivered.
11. The
"on acts,
will,"
on the
replace us
"on
acts of
the
will"
in the lecture
as
delivered. it
12. A
at the
line directs
This
following
bottom
"he"
'why
science':
rests on an irrational
sentence
is
not present
manuscript.
in the lecture
omitted
as
delivered.
deliv
13.
is
written
instead
"Socrates"
of
in the
14. The
ered.
"there,"
word
which
has been
added above
the
line, is
in the lecture
as
15.
"Banquet'
"Symposium"
replaces words
in the lecture
as
delivered.
"one"
16. The
"a
few"
added above
which
has been
crossed out.
In
keeping
Also,
Plato
"points"
has been
made plural
which
by
the
here the
following
sentence,
has been
ever, the
and
end of
the
paragraph):
and
Evil,
therewith with
Socrates, Nietzsche
it
were
in passing in
'Christianity
for the
17.
people.'"
"spends"
18. 20.
"the"
"sends"
the manuscript.
19. "it
is"
added above
"this"
the line.
"it"
replaces
in the lecture
as
delivered.
336
21.
Interpretation
"Nietzsche's"
line to
"the"
replace
"the."
which
has been
crossed out.
In the
lecture
22.
as
delivered, however,
is
written
the reading
"all"
is
again manuscript.
"the"
instead
of
in the
23.
"Probably."
is
written
instead
"Perhaps."
of
in the
manuscript.
truism"
24. "a truism for many replaces "for many people a 25. is written instead of in the manuscript.
people"
in the lecture
as
delivered.
"supplied"
"suggested"
26.
"an"
is
written
instead
of
"a
simple"
in the
manuscript.
thought:"
27. "inaccessible
e.g.
to original Hebrew or
Arabic:"
Arabic
is
written
instead
of
"inexpress
manuscript
ible in is
"original"
original
Hebrew
or
in the
manuscript.
Also,
the
word
in the
added
paragraph
is
omitted which
in the lecture
as
here
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
fifteen
seconds
29. At the
end of the
is
notation, "Continue
4b."
That
back to the
present
one,
on sheet
4b,
This
omitted
portion,
to as directed
by
appears to
be the
end of
further justified
occurrence of
by
lecture
sheet
as
delivered in Annapolis
here in the
off
manner
that we are presenting it (i.e. from the second marginal the omitted section was
where
of the manuscript).
before the
of
notation,
however,
we cannot
included in
oral presentation.
(A
indicate
sentence
is
omitted
delivered
and replaced
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
of
following history
unproblemati
31. The
cannot
sentence what
indicate
"Xenophon's Hellenica begins abruptly with is." is written instead the intention of his work
Symposium)"
'Thereafter'
thus
Xenophon
sen
of these
four bracketed
32. The
infer"
words
"(the "in
are omitted
in the lecture
history,"
as
delivered,
and
by
"one
infer."
can of
33. The
it."
words
are written
instead
"to
in the
manuscript.
Also, instead
of
by
Xenophon in
excursuses."
the
manuscript contains
the
"belong
in
excursuses"
above replaces
the line.
34. "this
work"
"the
as
Hellenica"
in the lecture
as
delivered.
as
phrase
"as far
possible"
is
omitted
in the lecture
delivered.
Instead,
the
next
'Thereafter"
is followed
by
possible."
"considering
instead
of
the 'What
is'
unch
of
being
is
37.
"Xenophon's"
replaces
economic
in the lecture
historian "but
.
as
delivered.
written
38. "(=
historian,
art
is
instead
of
these bracketed
words
in
the manuscript.
39. "yet
40.
his"
is
written
instead
Vico's"
of
in the
manuscript.
"classical"
is
written
instead
"Greek"
of
and
in the
manuscript.
41. "technai
words
(including
is
written
mimetike)"
chrematistike
is
written
instead
of
these bracketed
in the
manuscript.
42.
"doxai"
instead
"opinions"
of
in
the manuscript.
43. The
out.
words
"Their
as
objects"
line to
"They"
"They"
replace
which
has been
crossed
In the lecture
delivered, however,
the word
held"
is the
the
one used.
44. "of things owing their being to script. A notation above the line directs
being
us
added at
bottom
and
of
to insert this
phrase
here,
lecture
45.
as
delivered.
"teaching"
is
written
instead
"doctrine"
of of
in the
manuscript.
46. "the
classical"
is
written
instead
"this
earlier"
in the manuscript.
The
47. A
notation above
problem
of Socrates
337
us
following
=
words,
das
Gemachte."
These
words are
in the lecture
as
delivered.
with
lines, beginning
"phusis"
the
words
"Heidegger
tries,"
are omitted
from the
delivered.
replaces
"nature"
as
delivered.
"men"
"purely"
51.
53.
added above
probably"
which
has been
crossed out.
52. "what is
"
omitted
as
delivered.
understands"
we"
is
written
instead
of
in the
of
manuscript.
54. "understands
understood"
or
is
written
instead
"understood
of
or
in the
manuscript.
manu
understand"
is
written
instead
understands"
in the
56.
57.
"understood"
is
written
instead
of
"understands"
of earlier
manuscript.
"them"
is
written
instead
of
"the
philosophers"
in the
times
manuscript.
58.
"it"
is
written
instead
"historicism"
in the
of
manuscript.
periods"
59. "f(times
periods)"
or
is
written
instead
"functions
of
or
in the
manuscript.
60. This
61. This 62.
"it"
is
omitted
as
delivered.
begins instead
with of
the word
in the in the
manuscript.
manuscript.
is A
written
"the human
race
race"
had
origin"
an
added at the
bottom
and
of
here,
as
it is included here in
the
lecture
as
delivered.
not
the
basis"
replaces
"if
not the
in the lecture
that the
delivered.
also occurs
crossed out.
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
a marginal notation
by
following
"The
ground of all
beings,
and
especially
of
man, is Sein
But if
this
is so, Sein
cannot
be the
(+
or
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.
its
Sein."
66. This
entire parenthesis
word
is
omitted
as
"insistence"
and
Latinate,
is
"standing
of
or
resting
words
a"
awareness-acceptance of
written
instead
these bracketed
68. 70.
71.
is
inadvertently
or written
omitted
as
delivered.
69. "sempiternal
"requires"
eternal"
sempiternal"
replaces
in the lecture
as
delivered. delivered.
is
instead
to
of
"would
require"
in the
manuscript.
"by"
added
by
the
editors
replace
"of in the
are"
manuscript and
in the lecture
as
end of the
interpolated
of
in
note
65.
is
written
instead
"in this
of
view
in the in the
manuscript. manuscript.
"aidion"
is
written
instead
"sempiternal"
reply"
replaces
"also
"ex
follows"
replies as replace
in the lecture
which
fit."
as
delivered.
crossed out.
no place
symbol
"
"
added above
the line to
"denies"
has been
is
77. The
followed
by
written
instead
of
manuscript.
Also,
are
ens."
78. A
notation above
following
words,
the bottom
of the page
in the
manuscript:
These
in the lecture
as
delivered.
338
Interpretation
symbol " where
"
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
79. The
is
written
instead
of these
as
80. Here is
first,
other.
which
begins
under
the
word
"Thing-in-itself,
Without."
consists of two
lines,
one
underneath
the
The top line is "(Kant) nature 'an for Heidegger and Nietzsche: no Beyond or
"for,"
sich' unknowable."
appears
to be "but
have interpreted
as
which
group
mind
of
words,
(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
(Hegel)"
in its
Anderssein."
82. A
written at
notation above
the
bottom is the
of
if
mysticism
discovery
life
of
following two sentences, which are "Heidegger has something to do with mysticism the deity in the depths of the human heart. But the
meant
mystery
which
Heidegger
",Ding"
claims to
have discovered is
God."
to be
deeper,
and
less based
"Ware"
on
questionable
83. The
the
the word
in
manuscript.
84. A
at
notation above
the line
directs
us to
following
of
sentence,
which
is
written upholds
the bottom of the page in the manuscript. "In this way, and only in this way, the trans-national or trans-cultural
Heidegger
the universalist
intention
philosophy."
85. Here,
4b,"
at
"Continue
we with
29,
and which of
directs
us
back to the
portion of the
have
far. At the
which
beginning
has been
lecture,
a new paragraph
the
following
sentence,
tion of the
worth of what
Socrates
that
for,
"However this may be, can one answer the ques formulate it, if one does not
As the
reader will
place what
it is for
which
he
immediately
precedes
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
paragraph.
"framed"
87. It is
88. 89. The
manuscript.
possible
added
word
here instead
"formed."
of
"one"
by
the
editors.
words
"than
conversations
dealing
with
ti estr are
added
90.
"are"
added
by
the
editors.