Two Lectures by Leo Strauss

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,

Spring 1995, Vol. 22, No. 3

302

Interpretation
"Existentialism,"

The first of these two lectures,

was

delivered

by

Professor

Strauss fourteen

years earlier than the second one,

related to one another

"The problem of

Socrates."

They

are,

however,

by

their common concern to under

are

stand and to respond to the thought

of Heidegger. Indeed, they

Professor
so

Strauss's
we

most extensive public statements about and 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,

and alterations with

by

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

in

typescript,

Professor Strauss's revisions,

be found in

the

Strauss

ar

chives at the
version where

University
while

of Chicago. We have

chosen to present the revised

in the text,

indicating

in

notes what the revisions were.

However,
he
have
pre

Professor Strauss merely

only the

corrected a

typographical mistake, or where

added a comma or made other small changes sented corrected version.

of punctuation,

we

We have

also taken the

liberty

of correcting,
to

without

comment, a few misspellings in the typescript. We

are grateful

Hein

rich and

Wiebke Meier for

their most generous

help

in

deciphering

Professor

Strauss's handwriting.
A
more

heavily
seen

edited version

of this

lecture, based

on a typescript that

differs, in part, from

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

having
sical

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

been

by

Professor Strauss,

Political Rationalism: An Introduction to the Thought

of

Leo Strauss (Chi

of Chicago]), be the most

cago: pp.

University

of Chicago Press, 1989

noted

1989

by

The

University

2746. We have

in

an epilogue what appear to us to

important divergences between

the earlier version and the present one.

This
should

series of

lectures

a reminder of

the perplexities towards

of modem man

help

the Jewish students in

with

particular

facing

the perplexities of
reminded

the modem Jew

people

somewhat greater clarity.

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

observer, for instance. swered by science, for this

The3

question what am
would mean

I,

or who am

pointer-reading cannot be an
self-forgetting

that there are some

1995

by

The

University Spring

of

Chicago. All rights

reserved.

interpretation,

1995, Vol. 22, No. 3

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

ourselves and our situation

honestly,

without

the pride and the pre

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

a nameless move owes

like

pragmatism or positivism. significance

This is

deceptive.5

Existentialism
alone

its

overriding
thought in

to a single

man:

Heidegger. Heidegger
thought as
and

brought
all

about such a radical change

in

philosophic

is revolutionizing

Germany, in

continental

Europe,

is

beginning

to affect even

Anglo-Saxony. I

am not surprised

by

this effect. I remember the impression

he

made on me when

I heard him first

as a

young Ph.D. in 1922.

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

devotion to the idea

of

science,

devotion that in Frankfurt

when

was

combined with a profound uneasiness

regarding the meaning of science. On my

saw am

way north from Freiburg Main Franz Rosenzweig

where

Heidegger then taught, I

name will

whose

always

be

remembered

in
said

formed
in

people speak about

Existentialism,

and

I told him
appeared

of

Heidegger. I

to him: in comparison with

child regard

Heidegger,

Weber

to

me as an orphan

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

and concentration

before

such

seriousness, profundity,

in the interpretation

of

philosophic

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

same

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

texts.
no

Charity

compels me

to

limit the

comparison to the

remark7

that there was

which

comparison. was

Gradually

the breadth of the

me and

revolution

of

thought

Heidegger
our own

eyes

preparing dawned upon that there had been no in

a short

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

remarkable representative of established academic

had

eyes.

Cassirer had been

a pupil of

philosophy to everyone Hermann Cohen, the founder of the

system

who
neo-

Kantian

school.8

Cohen had

elaborated a system of

was ethics.

Cassirer had transformed Cohen's

philosophy whose center into a new system of

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

awareness that this

most

pher

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

an abyss.

Prior to Heidegger's emergence the

only5

German

philoso

of

Husserl's

phenom

enology

became decisive: precisely because that

criticism consisted

in

Existentialism
radicalization of once said

305

Husserl's

own question and questioning.

in9

Briefly,

as8

Husserl
the10

to

me who

had been trained

the

Marburg

neo-Kantian

school,

neo-Kantians were superior made

to all other German

with

philosophical

schools, but

they

the

mistake of

beginning

the roof. He meant: the primary theme of

of science.

Marburg

neo-Kantianism was the

analysis

But science, Husserl

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

science out of pre-scientific

understanding is sensibly

problem; the primary theme is

the

philosophical

understanding began
with

of the pre-scientific world and therefore

perceived

in the

first

place the analysis of the

himself5

thing.

According

to Heidegger

Husserl

the roof: the merely

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

the world of pre-scientific un

derstanding
the

was the pure consciousness as the absolute being. Heidegger ques

tioned that orientation

by

pure consciousness cannot

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

this time is necessarily finite and even constituted

same effect which

by

man's

mortality.

The

Heidegger had in the late twenties

soon

and

many, he had very

in

continental

Europe

as a whole.

early thirties in Ger There is no longer in Marxism

crude

existence a philosophic position apart or refined.

from

neo-Thomism and positions

All

rational13

liberal

philosophic

have lost their

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

tual plight. But here

is the

trouble, the only

of course

great

thinker in our time

is

Heidegger.

The only
ger's

question of

importance

is the is

question whether

Heideg

teaching is true
great
Kant16

or not.

But the very

question

is deceptive because it is
competent
of5

silent about the question of competence

of who

to judge. Per

haps only
thinkers.

thinkers are really competent to judge

made a

the thought of great those

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

that call themselves philosophers are

on

mostly,
great

best,
The

scholars.

The

scholar

is radically dependent
problems without
not

the work of the

thinkers,

of men who scholar

faced the

being

covered"

authority.

to

our sight

in,

to

us

is cautious, methodic, inaccessible heights and

bold. He does

not

by any become lost

mists as

the great thinkers do. Yet

306
while

Interpretation
the great thinkers are so bold

they

are also much more cautious than we

are;

they

see pitfalls where we are sure of our ground.

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

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

other great

cannot exclude

the possibility that

thinkers might arise in the fu thought

ture

in 2200 in Burma for

the

character18

of whose

has in

no

provided out

by

our schemata.

For

who are we

to believe that we have

way been found

the limits of human the little we

scholar

possibilities?19

In brief,

we are occupied with

reasoning
of

about

understand oP what

the great thinkers have said.

problems

The

faces the fundamental

through the
of

intermediacy

books. If he is
great thinker

a serious man through the

problems

intermediacy

the great books. The

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

time is needed in order to understand with even tolerable

way22

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

still escapes me. or

to reject his

work.

justification for
above the

doing

so.

Heidegger
on

Nazi in 1933. This lived

read

due to

a mere error of

judgment

the

part of a man who

on great

heights high
book

lowland23

of politics.

Everyone
the trees

who

had

his first

great

and

did

not overlook

the wood for

could see

the

kinship

in temper

and

direction between Heidegger's

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

the contempt for

the
work24

reasonableness and

the

praise of resoluteness which permeated movement?

except

to encourage that extremist

of

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

the movement which then swept

Germany. his

Heidegger has list in

of

dared to in

mention

in the
on

otherwise complete
of

his writings, he

which appear
Yet8 195325

from time to time he

published a

the book jackets

given

recent publications.
which

book, lectures

spoke of

the greatness and

dignity
he

of

in 1935, the National Socialist move

ment. rected.

In the The

preface written

in

195325

said that all mistakes

had been

cor

case

of

Heidegger
naturally,

reminds would not

to a certain extent of the case of

Nietzsche.

Nietzsche,

have

sided with
and

Hitler. Yet there is

one rejects

an undeniable

kinship

between Nietzsche's thought

fascism. If

Existentialism
as

307

passionately be

as

Nietzsche
with
a27

did26

the conservative constitutional monarchy as

well as will

democracy

view

to a new aristocracy, the passion of the denials

more subtle
his29

much more effective

than the necessarily

To28

intimations

of

the

character of the new nobility.

political action against such things

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

as great and even greater

Mediterranean
And30

civilization

around

300

of

the Christian

It is

childish

to

believe that the U.N.

within

organization

is

an answer even

to the

political problem.
31
and5

democracy: it
and5

suffices to mention the name of

positivism with

France

the

commercials

logical

their indescribable vulgarity.

They

have indeed the

merit of not

sending
of

men

into

concentration camps and gas

chambers, but is the absence

once

these unspeakable evils sufficient? Nietzsche

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

and exalted and exalted practical

destiny. Specialization,

knowing

more and more about

less

and

less,

impossibility
universality,

of concentration upon

the very few

this33

essential

things upon which

man's wholeness

entirely depends

specialization compensated

by

sham

by

the stimulation of all kinds of interests

philistinism and problem.

and curiosities without

true passion, the danger of universal

let

me

look for

a moment at

the Jewish

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

problem.

"The Judaeo-Christian tradition"? This

pluralism can

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

be wholly unworthy of democracy even if they are may

recall

us as

thinking beings

to listen to the

enemies of

thinking
As

men and

you

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

democracy not blustering

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

generally vaguely felt but not I have already referred to the

more about

accepted

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

known

expression

'we know that

more and

less

less.'

and

What does this

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:

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

verse and

the truth

about man. of

You have in the Education of Henry Adams

memorable

document

the change in the character and in the claim of science

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

to the social scientist in particular. This means

increased

man's power

former
use5

men never

certainly that while science has dreamt of, it is abso Science

cannot tell
or

lutely

incapable to tell

men

how to

that power.
and

him
and

whether

wisely devilishly. From this it follows that science is

it is

wiser

to

use

that

power

beneficently
in

foolishly
own

unable

to establish its

mean-

ingfulness
We

or

to

answer

the

question whether and

what sense science

is

good.

are then confronted with an enormous apparatus whose

but8

bulk is
say

ever

increas

ing,

which

in itself has

no meaning.

If

a scientist would

as

Goethe's
would

Mephisto

still said

that science and reason is man's highest power,

he

be

told that he was not

which

talking

as a scientist

but

was34

making

a value

judgment Someone

from the

point of view of science

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.

But this time has

equal
we

Today
draw

hear that

no conclusion whatever can

be drawn from the

ity

of all

values; that

does

not

legitimate

nor

indeed forbid that

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

The flight from

scientific reason

is35

the consequence of the

flight

of5

science

Existentialism
from5

309
his

reason

from the

notion that man

is

a rational

being

who perverts

being
does

if he does

not act rationally.

It

goes without

not allow of value

judgments has

no

saying that a science which longer any possibility of speaking of

the con

progress except

in the

humanly

irrelevant

sense of scientific progress:

cept of progress

has accordingly been

replaced

by

the concept

of change.

If

science or reason cannot answer the question of

sufficiently
selves to
nal: one

gifted and otherwise able people science says

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

choice of science

science,

in

effect

that the

is

not ratio myths.

may

choose with equal

science

right pleasing

and otherwise

satisfying

Furthermore,

does

no

longer

conceive of

itself
on

as

the perfection of the

human understanding36; it
which will always remain rest on evident necessities.

admits

that it is based

fundamental hypotheses does

not

hypotheses. The

whole stmcture of science choice of

If this is so, the

the scientific orientation

is

as groundless as the choice of

mean

any

alternative orientation. as

But

what else

does

this

except that

the reflective scientist discovers

a8

the ground of

his

science and entific

and

his

choice of science

groundless choice

an abyss. on

For

a sci

interpretation

of the choice of the scientific

on

orientation,

the one

hand,

the choice of alternative orientations,

the other, presupposes already the

acceptance of the scientific orientation.

non-hypothetical phenomenon.

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

already in the say that helpless

midst of

Someone ism ism have have

might

science
against

by

are of course
a rational

the Existentialist onslaught. But do

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

takes up the thread where science and positiv

no
match?19

I If

philosophy?19

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

reveal character of

do I find today the

philosopher who

dares

the true metaphysics and the tme ethics which

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

being

and the

the

good

life?19

Naturally

we can sit at

the

feet

of the great philoso

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

the old philosophers

not exposed

to the danger of a weak-kneed eclecticism

which will not withstand a single

blow

on

the part of those who are competent

enough

to

remind

them

of

the

singleness of purpose and of

great?19

inspiration that

characterizes every thinker who deserves to be called

Considering

the

profound
appeal proper

disagreement among the

without

great thinkers of the

past, is it possible to

to them

is taken

more and more

blunting all edges? by what was

The

called

Weltanschauungslehre, theory
mitted

of comprehensive

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

place of rational

that we cannot refer to the tme metaphysical and ethical

teaching

avail-

310
able

Interpretation
in any
of

the

great thinkers of

the past. It is admitted

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

to any other. This

means

to abandon the very

idea
as

of

the
the

truth as a rational philosophy

case of the social
scientists38

has

always understood

it. It

means

just

in

that the choice of any of these

again

presuppositions

is
of

groundless;

we are

thus

led39

to the abyss of

freedom. To say nothing

the fact that any

such

doctrine

of comprehensive views presupposes

that the

fundamental
at

possibilities are available or

that fundamental human creativity

is

its

end.

Furthermore there is

a radical

disproportion between the

questions

analyst of

comprehensive views who

does

not

face the fundamental

directly

and

does

not even recognize

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

the Utopian character

that40

of original position must

philosophy itself. How

understand

to

the thinkers

possibly believe want to be understood they

order and

he is in
as8

and

they

have been

understood

if

one

is to

tabulate their teachings. We

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

spects, that they

possible
views

way out finds itself

this8

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

the variety of comprehensive

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

People say that

science
of

we must adopt values and

Our42

solving the so-called that it is natural for

value problem. us to adopt

the
of

values of our society.

values are our

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

precedes essence. natural

For

what else rooted

do
in

people mean when

they

say,

e.g.

Stoic

law teaching is

decay

of the

Greek

polis and

the emergence of the Greek

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

saying impossible
are the

for

serious men.

We

cannot

help

raising the

question as

to the value of the

values of our society. values of one's

To

accept the values of one's

society because they

society

means

simply to shirk one's responsibility, not to

make

face

the situation that everyone has to

his

own

choice, to mn

away from

one's

Existentialism
self.

-311

To find the

solution

to our problem in the acceptance of the the

values of our

values of our

society, because

they

are

society

means

to make philistinism a

duty

and to make oneself oblivious

to the difference between tme individuals

and whitened sepulchres.

The

uneasiness

which

today is felt but

not

faced

can

be

expressed

by

single word: relativism.

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

reaction of serious men to

with

their own

relativism.

Existentialism begins then

the realization that as the ground of all ob

an abyss.

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

in detachment. Man life

freely

meaning,

originates

the

horizon,
project,

the absolute presupposition, the

and are possible.

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

himself back from his lostness

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
authentic oneself

way means to be in an authentic way is incompatible with being false to others. Thus
with44

others:

to be true to

there would seem to

exist
a

the possibility of

an existentialist ethics which would

have to be however believed in the

strictly formal

ethics.

However this may

means

be,

Heidegger

never

possibility of an ethics. To be a human being

authentic and one's own sham certainties

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

in the world; to

accept

the things

within

the world as merely resolutely,

factual

being
(and

as

merely

factual;

to risk

oneself

despising
is in this
are.

all objective certainties are sham). world reveal

Only

if

man

way do the things in the

concern with objective
consequence

themselves to him as
narrows

they

The

that

man erects around

certainty necessarily himself

the horizon. It leads to the

an artificial

from him the To live We

abyss of which means

he

must

be

aware

if he

wants

setting which conceals to be truly human. But

are we

dangerously
ultimately

to think exposedly.

are

confronted with mere

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

the Whole. But

Whole.46

we

raising the questions of the not know and cannot know

the Where and Whither and the

Man

cannot understand

himself in the
irredeemable47

light

of the whole,

in the light
of

of

his

origin or

his
of

end.

This

ignorance is the basis

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

ability to grasp the fact

of

his freedom

at

the limits

knowledge

and as

the ground of objective knowledge. But

and no other world.

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

the analytics of Exis-

from the
and

the fundamental ontology. This means he took

question what

up

again

Plato's any

Aristotle's
said

is being? What is that Plato

and

by

virtue of which 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 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

Aristotle to be in the high

that to

est sense means

sense means

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

brings to light the

new

structures, the unchangeable character

of existence.

Philosophy
the
new

in

spite of the

difference

of

content, objective,
analytics of subjec

philosophy, comparable to Kant's transcendental

not

tivity? Does

knowledge,

complete

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

the new philosophy is necessarily based on a specific

cannot analyze existence
choice which

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

finite being, incapable

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

philosophy has been

of existen

by
is

the distinction between the objective which is true and the subjective

opinion

(or

an equivalent of this

distinction). On the basis

itself to be
as49

tialism

what was and

formerly
what
with

called objective reveals

superficial

problematic;

was

formerly

called

subjective

reveals

itself

as

pro

found
The
tenz;5

assertoric,
great

the understanding that there is no apodicticity.

of

achievement
Existenz.5

Heidegger

was

the coherent exposition of the

experience of of

coherent exposition
Existenz.5

based

on

the experience of Exis

spoken of exis

the

essential character of

Kierkegaard had
the

tence within the traditional

horizon,

i.e.

within

distinction between
tence out
of

essence and existence.

the traditional Heidegger tried to understand exis

of

horizon

itself.

Existentialism
Yet the
analytics
of existence was a exposed

313
which

to serious difficulties
new

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

1

fundamentally

basis,

that is to say,

mention now some of

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

The fact that the 3 The

of existence was

based in the

on

ideal

of existence made one

wonder whether

analysis was not

fundamentally
while

arbitrary.

analytics

of existence
no to

had

culminated

assertion that there can

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

the earth), if there

without

human beings. This is hard: that there

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

in the light Professor

infinity?19

Or in

that we cannot know the whole; but does this not

necessarily

presuppose awareness of as

the

whole?

Hocking

stated

this

difficulty
poses

neatly

follows: desespoir
rather

presupposes espoir and espoir

presup

love; is

then not love

than despair the

fundamental

phenomenon?

Is therefore These

not that which man

objections which

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

same objections which

Hegel had

to Kant. The
of

relation of

Heidegger to
objections

his

own existentialism

is the

same as

that

Hegel to Kant. The

mentioned would seem

to lead to the consequence that one cannot escape meta

consequence what

physics, Plato
return

and

Aristotle. This

is
is

rejected

by

Heidegger. The be

to

metaphysics

is impossible. But
on an

needed
plane.

is

some repetition of cannot

all5

what metaphysics
the5

intended

entirely different

Existence

clue, the clue to the understanding of that

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

analytics of existence appears still

subjectivism.51

partake of modem
compared

the relation of Heidegger to existentialism with the relation

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

existentialism can therefore

follows. Existentialism
man, the final

claims

to

be the insight into the

such would

essential character of

insight

which as

belong

to the final

ism denies the possibility of ishable; man is and always

existentialism claims

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

to be the understanding of the

does

not reflect about

its

own

historicity,

of

historicity of man and yet it belonging to a specific situation

return

of western man.

It becomes therefore necessary to

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

More its This

democracy precisely future. Existentialism belongs to the decline

a
which

liberal

has become
of

itself

or of

Europe

or of the a

West.52

insight has

grave

consequences.

Let

us

look back for

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

prise, but a strong

expressive of of

dependent is the
of

on

the

will of

the majority yet

recognition monarchic

the general will

man or of

reasonable will of

each,

the rights of
of

the
a

dignity

every human being, the

head

the state guided

by

first final

rate and

ety thus constructed was the

society.

highly History

educated civil service.

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

since all other cultures

have been

absorbed

into the

west, the

beginning

the decline of mankind. There

is

no

future for

mankind.

Almost

everyone rebelled against

Hegel's conclusion,

no one more

powerfully

than Marx. He pointed out the untenable character of the

settlement and the problem of the
arose

working

class with all

post-revolutionary its implications. There

for
ever
Occident53

the vision of a world

society

which presupposed and established

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

over

the

Orient53;
of man who

which would make possible

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

the communist vision with greater

fied the
the

man of

the

communist world of man.

extreme

degradation
European

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

than Nietzsche. He identi

accepted

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

conservatives

all continental

in

tent

completion of

democratic

egalitarianism and of

freedom

which was not a

distinction to the European doomed. For

all

freedom for, but only a conservatives he saw that conservatism

only liberalistic demand for freedom from. But in contra

that
as such

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.

the twentieth century to be the

leading

up to planetary
exercised

If

man were

to have a

future,

this rule would

have to be iron

by

a united

Europe. And the

enormous

tasks

of such an

age could not

and unstable governments situation required

possibly be discharged, he thought, by weak dependent upon democratic public opinion. The new
new5

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

nobility,
and

nobility formed
reason also

by

a new

ideal. This is the meaning

of

most obvious

meaning

for this

the

most superficial

his

notion of

the super

man: all previous notions of

human

greatness would not enable man to

face the
mlers of

infinitely increased responsibility that possible future would be the

an overstatement to
what a philosopher

of

the planetary age. The

of

invisible

philosophers5

the future. It is certainly not

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

is

as

Nietzsche. This is
Plato's5

not to

deny

that the philosophers of than

while

the future as Nietzsche described them

self seems

remind much more philosophers.

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

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

concerned with

the holy. His

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

will

be

religious. an

This does

not mean that

he be

atheist, but

an atheist who with

for

a god who
and

has

not yet shown

himself. He has broken

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

outside the world which could

atoms of which we could

be

of

any

be

certain

by

by

faith.

Every
of

concern

for

such a ground of

the world as is

the world, i.e.

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

from the terrifying down reality to what a man can bear

escape

it

desire for

The First World War

of

Europe to its foundations. Men lost their

sense

direction. The faith in

original vigor were

progress

in its
the

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

non-communists

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

seemed

to be much more credible. But one had to

prognosis.

be inhuman to leave it for

at

Spengler's

Is there

no

hope for Europe

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

him? Nietzsche's hope only

rule

Europe ruling the planet,

for55

Europe

not

but

revitalized

by

this new, transcendent responsibility of planetary

either

had

proved

to be a delusion. A world society controlled

appeared

by Washing
not make a and

ton or Moscow

to be

approaching. or

For Heidegger it did be the He

center:

difference
this

whether

Washington

Moscow

would

"America

Soviet Russia
world

same."

are

metaphysically the

What is decisive for him is that

calls

society is to him
means

more than a nightmare.

it the "night

of

the

world."

It

indeed,
and

as

Marx had predicted, the victory

west over regardless whether

of an evermore

urbanized,
complete

evermore

completely technological, uniformity

the whole planet

about

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

routine without rhyme and

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

Fundamentally because by this world society: the

to be
related

there

is something in man desire for the genuine, for

man's

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

ideals, but

all

ideals have
The
old

proved

to societies which were not world to

overcome5

societies.

ideals

will not enable man

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

human only if all

religions are

men are

genuinely

united

by

a world religion.

steadily

undermined as

far

as

their effective power

by by

the

progress

towards a technological

world society.

all existing is concerned, There forms itself an

But

open or concealed world alliance of the

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

with each other not

that

each regards

the

others as man

This is

very

promising.

On the

other

hand,57

indeed noble, but cannot make or fabricate

receptive

untrue.5

world religion.

He

can

only

prepare

becomes
tion.

receptive

to it if he thinks

by becoming deeply enough about

extinction

it

to it. And
and

he

himself

his

situa

Man's

humanity is

threatened with

by

technology.

Technology
at

is

the fruit of rationalism

and rationalism

is the fruit

of

Greek philosophy. Greek

and

philosophy is the
same

condition of
impasse5

the possibility of

technology

therefore

the

time of the

created

by

technology.

technological mass society if there are no essential

hope beyond limitations to Greek philoso

no

There is

phy, the root

of

technology, to say nothing

of modem

philosophy.

Greek

phi

losophy

was

the attempt to

understand the whole.

It presupposed therefore that

Existentialism
the whole

"317

is intelligible,
the disposal of

or

that the grounds of the whole are essentially intel

ligible:

at

man as man
man.5

that

they

are

always5

and therefore

in

principle always accessible to

This

view

is the

condition of the possi

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

is beyond human mastery

the
on a specific

have hope.

Transcending
viz.

the limits of

rationalism requires

discovery

the limits of rationalism.

Rationalism is based
to

understanding
always

of what

being

means,

that

be

means

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

sense means to

in

the

highest

be

present, to be

always.

This basis

of

rationalism proves

to be a

dogmatic

assumption. spite of

Rationalism itself

rests on

non-rational, unevident assumptions: in

power,

rationalism

is hollow:
to

rationalism

itself

rests of

its seemingly overwhelming on something which it

cannot master. assertion that to

more adequate means

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

succumbs to western rationalism.

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

technology. The west has first to recover

possible a own

itself that

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

separation of west and east.

No

genuine

the level

of present

day

thought

meeting of i.e. in the form

west and east of

is

possible on

the meeting of the most

most superficial period

vocal,
of

most

glib,

most superficial representatives of

the

both

west and east. roots of

The meeting
man who

of west and east can

only be

meeting

of

the deepest

both.

Heidegger is the only The

western

has

an

inkling

of

the dimensions of the

problem of a world society.

thinker

can prepare

that

roots of

the west. Within the west

meeting by the limitations of

descending59

to the deepest

rationalism were always ele

seen

by

the biblical tradition. (Here

earlier

lies the justification for the biblical

this must be

ments

in Heidegger's
one

thought.) But
Eastern60

rightly

understood.

Biblical thought is

form

of

thought.

By taking
as

the Bible as abso

lute,

one

blocks the
us,
us

access

to other

forms

of eastern

thought. Yet the Bible

is
as

the east

within

within61

western man.

Not the Bible

Bible but the Bible

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

being was experienced being

only for the investigation way

which prevented

primary experi the beings. The east has

and

the

in

the investigation of beings and

318

Interpretation
western experience of

therewith the concern with the mastery of beings. But the

being
em

makes possible

in principle,

coherent speech about

being.

By

opening
west-

ourselves to the problem of

being
we

and to

the problematic

character of

the

understanding only

of

being,

The
not

ground of grounds which of religion

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

it may be described crudely

and

the biblical God.

NOTES

"compare"
.

has been

changed

by

hand

by

the insertion of the capital letter. The period at the

correction of a comma

end of

the previous word

"warning"

is the

editors'

that seems to have been

left

uncorrected

in the typescript.
added

2. begins

"thinking"

by

hand to

"theoretical"

replace

which

has been

crossed out. and

3. In the typescript the

with

previous sentence ends after the word

"observer,"

the new one

the words "For

instance,

the.

"

The

punctuation and capitalization

have been

changed

by

hand.
of the old paragraph

4. Continuation

in the typescript, but

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

has been hand to

hand.

crossed out. replace

7. "to limit the

crossed out.

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

crossed out. which

"indicated"

added comma after

by

hand to

"meant"

has been

crossed out.
use"

12. The
added

"pragmata"

the words "things which we handle and

"rational"

have been letters

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

15. "of 16.

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

in editing this lecture for The Rebirth of Classical Political

"possibility"

Rationalism.
"character"

added

by

hand to

replace

which

has been

crossed out.

19. The

question mark

has been

added

by

the editors to correct a period in the typescript.

Existentialism
20. "of 21. The
added

319

by hand

"about"

to replace
changed

which

has been

crossed out.

word order

here has been

by

hand. The

original

typed phrase is "so radically

the intellectual

orientation."

22. "and in hand. 24. "which 25.

"1953"

way"

a most general

added words

by

hand.
which

23. The typescript has the

permeated the added
words

"low

land"

have been joined into

a single word

by

work"

added

by

hand.
"1952"

by

the editors to correct

does"

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 insertion of the capital letter. The

correction of a comma

the end

the previous word

"nobility"

is the

editors'

that seems to have been left

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

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

added

The

period after the

31. The dash has been inserted

by

hand.

32. The 33. 34.

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,

though not, it seems,

word

by

Professor Strauss's hand.

confirmed as such

36. The typescript

an unknown

referred to of

in

note

17 apparently has the

"mind,"

by

hand, instead
words

"understanding."

37. The
of

"we

cannot refer

to the true

metaphysical and ethical

that"

the great thinkers of the past. It

is

admitted

have been

added

teaching available in any by hand, though not by

"scientists."

Professor Strauss's hand. 38. The typescript 39. The hand to 41. 40. The
referred

to in note 17 has the

and
which
"that"

"sciences"

word are

instead
led"

of

"groundless"

semicolon after

the words "we

crossed out.

thus

have been

added

by

replace

"and leads
"him"

us"

has been has been

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

crossed out and the capital

letter in

"Our"

has been has been

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."

typescript referred to in note

17 has the

word
"whence,"

instead

"Where."

of of

other typescript referred

to in note 17 has the

Whole."

word

in brackets, instead instead

of

the phrase "Where and Whither and the

other typescript referred

to in

note

17 has the

"irremediable"

word

"irre
truth"

The

editors suspect

that this is the correct

truth"

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

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

out

the final

"e"

"about the subjectivity of and adding the in

"subjective" "truth."

"subjectivity"

by

and

by

hand to

"Secondly,"

replace

which

has been

crossed out.

51. Quotation
jectivism."

marks

have been added,

the
West"

by

an unknown

hand,

around

the

words

"modern

sub

52. The 53. The

"west"

words words

"or

of

have been
"Orient"

added

by

hand.

"Occident"

and
which

have been inserted

crossed out.

by

hand

above

the typed words

"east,"

and

have not, however, been

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

changes are appar

ently by 56. The

not

Professor Strauss's hand.

words words at

"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.

58. The 59.

sent"

"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"

60. The 61. The

letter

at

the

beginning

of

has been inserted

added

by

hand.

"within"

before

"western"

has been

by hand,

but not, it seems,

by

Pro

fessor Strauss's hand.

EPILOGUE

this text and the

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"

the present version reads "Kant".

version

30: Between the first

paragraph.

and

the second paragraphs on this page, the present

inserts

a short

p. p. p.

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

paragraph reads and

differently

in the

present version.

"era"

"Nietzsche"

the present version

inserts three

sentences.

"that"

the present version inserts a

new completion of

this sentence and then

a new sentence. as

full

sentence.

After this

insertion,

the

"the,"

word

capitalized, begins

p.

39, line 7 from bottom: The

the meaning considerably.

present version

has

a sentence worded so

differently

to change

p.

43: The

one-sentence paragraph

beginning

with

the words "Heidegger

is the only

man

is in

the present version placed

p.

just before the

paragraph

44, line 24: The

being,"

remainder of

this paragraph,

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

all

as problem of

well

as the entire subsequent

which

paragraph, is taken from

years

Socrates,"

Professor Strauss delivered many

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

Introduction.

The

problem of

Socrates

Leo Strauss

"The
the

Socrates"

problem

of

was

delivered

as a

lecture

on

April 17, 1970,

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

napolis was available to the

editors,

as were copies

of an

anonymous
after about

transcrip
forty-five

tion of that tape.

Unfortunately,

the tape is

broken off

minutes,

with

nearly

half of the

manuscript still

unread, and the transcription

also ends where The editors on the

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

chosen to give the re

corded version almost equal weight with published text.

the manuscript as a

basis for

our

When the lecture

as

delivered merely
and where we

contains a word or words

that are not in the manuscript, we

cases where the two authorities

have included

these in

brackets. In the

other

differ have

have
in

preferred the version

in the lecture
cases we

as

delivered,

we

again

included it in brackets, but in these

a note.

have

also

included the
where we

manuscript version

In the

case

of

those

discrepancies

have

preferred the manuscript version, we

and we

have

included it in the
in
a note.

text without

brackets,

have included
on

the oral version

All italics

and paragraphs

are

based

the manuscript.

note

indicates
Strauss'

where

the tape is
on

broken off,
manuscript

and after alone.

this point we are of course

preserved

compelled

to

rely

the

We have

Professor sacrificing (apart

s punctuation to the extent that we thought possible without

clarity.

In those few

cases where we

have

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

which appear

in the

original

Greek in the
generous

manu

Finally,

we are grateful to

Dr. Heinrich Meier for his

help

in

deciphering
A
within a

Professor Strauss's handwriting.

small portion

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

Classical Political Rationalism: An Introduction to the Thought

Leo Strauss

1995

by

The

University

of

Chicago. All rights Vol.

reserved.

interpretation,

Spring 1995,

22, No. 3

322

Interpretation

(Chicago:

University
pp.

of Chicago

Press, 1989 [ 1989 by The University of

Chicago]),
[I
was

44-46.

told that the local

Socrates."

paper

has

announced that

I lecture

tonight on

"The

problems of

This

was an

than one problem of

Socrates,

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

tes was concerned. But one could say, the problem

concerned

Socrates

was

may be

of no concern

to us, that it may

not

be

relevant.

Therefore obviously But we

after all there are so and

many things

which concern us so much more

urgently than the

answer

problem with which

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

tics, i.e. the

seek

for

reasons.

The

earlier

high-class Greeks disdained to To

abide

for,

and

to present, the reasons of their

conduct. was

authority,

by

the command either of the gods or of

of good manners.
other means

themselves,
have

Only

those

people

recourse

for them simply a matter to dialectics who have no

the low-bom take of the to prove that

less."

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

enrages and at the same time makes

a new

help
of

Socrates fascinated because he discovered in dialectics

won over

form

agon, [of contest]; he thus them

and above all

the noble

youth of

Athens

and

among
surety,
was4

Plato. In

an age when

the

instincts had lost their decadence

ancient

[were

disintegrating]3,
cure

one needed a non-instinctual as much

tyrant; this
also of

tyrant

reason.

Yet the

belongs

to

as

the illness. the

philoso

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

philosophers, lacked the

[so-called]
illusion

"historical

sense."

Nietzsche's
in reality,

cure

for

all

Platonism
age

and

hence Socratism
without

was at all

times Thucydides who

seek reason

had the

cour

to face reality

and to

and not

in its

ideas. In Thucydides the

full6

sophistic

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

expression.

The
of

section on the problem of

Nietzsche's first publication, The Birth of Tragedy

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

spite of this and other

work with

defects Nietzsche's first [I

will

work

delineates his

future life

amazing
as

clarity.

therefore say something about

that.]
Nietzsche
paints

Socrates

"the

single

turning

point and vortex of so-called

world-history."7

[Nietzsche's]8

concern was not

or

cerned with

the

future

of

Germany

the future of Europe

merely theoretical; he was con a human future

achieved]9

that
man

must surpass

the highest that [has ever

manner of

been

before. The

peak of

hitherto is that

life that found its

"tragic"

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

a man of more than

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

the optimist,
possible all

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

can even correct

it; life
deus

can

be

guided

by

science; the

living

gods of

myth can

be

replaced

by

ex

machina, i.e. the forces

egoism".10

of nature as

known
since

and used

in the

service of

"higher

Rationalism is optimism,

it

is the belief that

reason's power

is

unlimited and all

science can solve all since

riddles

and

loosen

essentially beneficent or that chains. Rationalism is optimism,

ends or since rationalism of

the belief in causes

depends initial

on the

belief in

presupposes

the belief in the

or

final supremacy

the good. The

full

and

ultimate consequences of

the

change effected or represented

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

ism, liberalism, democracy,

and the

pacifism, and

socialism.

Both these

consequences

insight into the

essential

limitations
of

of science
man

have

shaken

"Socratic

culture"

to its foundation: "the time

a

Socratic

has

gone."

There is then

hope for
the

future beyond the

no

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

Nietzsche's liberator from

most

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

on the sacrifice of the intel-

324

'Interpretation

lect.12

This

criticism was made

by

a man who stood at the opposite pole of all

obscurantism and

fundamentalism.
misunderstand the utterances of Nietzsche on

One
which

would

therefore

Socrates

quoted or to which exerted a

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

that the gods too philosophize, thus obvi

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

preceding it; power. Nietzsche's Zarathustra is "a book for

title page]; Socrates calls
on some.

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

add one more point of no small

and

impor Plato

tance. In the Preface to Beyond Good

and

Evil,
it

when
were

taking issue
in
passing:

with

therewith

with

Socrates,

Nietzsche

says as

"Christianity

is Platonism for the

The
profoundest

interpreter

and at

the same time the profoundest critic of

profoundest

Nietzsche is Heidegger. He is Nietzsche's

interpreter

[precisely]
takes

because he is his
may be indicated

profoundest critic.
as

The direction

which

his

criticism

follows. In
animating

his18

Zarathustra Nietzsche had

philosophy; the spirit

spoken of

the

spirit of revenge as

all earlier

of revenge

is
is19

however in the last

the attempt to
also taught eternal sense or even cause of

analysis concerned with revenge on

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.

But through Heidegger's

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

thought can transcend time, can transcend

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

of course not peculiar to

Heidegger; it

emerged
24

today has become for many

through more

people a truism.

in the 19th century and But Heidegger has thought it

"historicism"

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

on absolute presuppositions which

to epoch, from cul

ture to culture, tion to which

be

questioned view

in the

situa

they belong
of

and which

they

constitute.

This

is

not refuted

by

the

"objectivity"

science,

by

the fact that science

down,

all cultural

barriers; for

the science which

of

transcends, or breaks does this is modern Western

Greek
science was rendered

science, the child or stepchild

possible

Greek

science.

by

the Greek those

[suggested]25

language, insights, divinations

a particular

language;

the Greek language

or prejudices which make science pos means

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

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

therewith in

particular

Socrates

and

Plato, lacked

the awareness of

Greeks, and history, the

historical
sion of

consciousness.

This is the

most popular and

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

why Socrates has become

which

problem,

why there is a 29This does delineate is

granted the

problem of not mean

Socrates. I have tried to

It

that the anti-Socratic position

would

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

Hellenica, Greek history. This

"Thereafter."

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

the Hellenica is devoted to the

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

different kind; his gentlemanship

'What regarding the

consists

question

various

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

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

adjective, like economic, art, upon, philosophy

Vico's]39

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

[what is called] for instance arts,

There is

"culture"

no

in

[Greek]40

thought

but [there
arts]41

including

the art of moneymaking

about the

and

the imitative

and

[opinions,] doxai, especially

highest in
nation

are therefore the

what we

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

undergo changes

[opinions]42 [opinions]42

differ from
Their

to nation and

they may

within nations.

objects43

have the
held,"

cognitive status of

nomizomena,

of

things owing their

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

the devaluation of nature;

Hobbes'

state of nature
standard:

is the best known

law [as it

example.

that from which one should move the

moral was

away.

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

ceased

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*

point of view as sequence of

follows: History, the

nomoi, phusis

object of

the historical consciousness, is a

understood as one nomos ger

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

above all man's

(to grow) but to being rooted in a human

tradition.47

creatively transforming that Nietzsche's Jenseits aphorism 188. 48

past,

tradition,

and

cf.

also

Let

me restate

the issue in somewhat different terms as follows. The human

species consists phusei of ethne.

This is due partly

philosopher
must

directly to

phusis49

(different
nomos

races, the

size and structure of

the surface of the earth) and

partly to

(customs
ethnos

and

languages).

Every
he

but

as

[a]

philosopher

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

.

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

means of the con

quest of nature and the universal recognition of a

so as

purely50

rational nomos

[law]

that only the difference of languages

remains

[which

even

important]. In

reaction to this

levelling,

which seemed

to

Stalin recognized deprive human life

The
of

problem

of Socrates
and

327

its

depth,
is

philosophers51

began to
of

prefer

the

particular

(the local

tempo

ral) to any universal

instead

merely accepting the particular. To

example:

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

[he necessarily itself. Understanding it better than it

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

the ground of grounds:

earlier phi

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

historicism. For historicism

must assert

it is

an

insight surpassing

insights,
it

it

claims

to

bring

to light the true character of all earlier insights:

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

absolute moment such a claim an end

[in
our

history]; but it
time,
or

must avoid

even the semblance of

for
to

for any time; for

process of

be tantamount to putting
Nietzsche).60

History, i.e.

to significant time

(cf. Hegel, Marx,

rational;

In

other words:

the historical

is

not

each epoch

has its

absolute

presuppositions; [in the formula

Ranke]
to light

(all

epochs are

this very

fact,

equally immediate to i.e. the truly absolute

God); but historicism has brought

presupposition.

The historicist insight

forgotten ion in
[That

at some

which man of course

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

to Heidegger there are no eternal

verities: eternal verities would presuppose

the eternity

human
this

race

(Sein

und

Zeit 227-230;

Einfuhrung
is

sempiternity of the in die Metaphysik 64)60.

or

Heidegger knows that [the human

race]62

not eternal or sempiternal.

origin,"

Is

not

mological

knowledge, insight, if
would

the knowledge that the human race had an

not the
basis,64

a cos

at

65The
"Sein"

ground of all

beings,

and

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

writer other

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

What does Heidegger

understand

mean

by
be

Sein? One Sein

can

begin [at least I be

*

can

begin]

to

it in the

following
cannot

manner.

cannot

explained

by

Seiendes.
of

For

instance, causality

explained

the categories

[surely

in the Kantian

place causally is sense]. This change necessary because

presuppositions

Sein takes the

the categories, the systems of categories, the absolute

change

from

epoch

to epoch; this change is not progress or rational

the

change of

the

categories cannot

be

explained

by,

or on

the basis of, one

particular system of

categories;

yet we could not speak of change

lasting

in the change; that

lasting

which

is

responsible

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

puts and

tal change [fundamental

thought] is Sein: Sein [as he

of

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

was not made

by

the

earlier philosophers and there

fore their thought is

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

theirs, but to Sein itself.

the Sein of
man.

The

key

to Sein is

one particular manner of

Sein,

Man is his
(or his

project: everyone

is

what

(or

rather

who) he is

by

virtue of the exercise of

project

freedom, his
failure to do limited

choice of a
so).

determinate ideal is finite: the

he has

of

existence, his

But

man

range of

his fundamental
man

choices

is is

by

his

situation which

not chosen:

is

a project which

thrown somewhere (geworfener Entwurf)60.

experienced

The

leap

through which Sein is

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

Earlier philosophy and espe Sein precisely because it was not

was guided

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,"

their successors understood the soul as substance, as a

self

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

dedication to it. "Ideal

the good

existence"

[this]

place

"respectable
"ideal

opinion of
of what

life"; but

opinion points respect

knowledge,
knowledge
of

existence"

whereas

implies that in this

much

there is no

[possible] but only

what

is

higher than

knowledge, i.e. knowledge

is

project, decision.

The
The
grounds ground of all

problem

of Socrates

329

beings,

and

especially

of

man, is Sein

this ground of

is

coeval with man and

therefore also

not eternal or

sempiternal.69

But

if this is so, Sein cannot be the man, in contradistinction to the

different from Sein. [In
not the other

complete ground of man:

essence of

the

emergence of

man, [would
not

require]70

a ground

words] Sein is

the ground of the That. But

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

causes, to its conditions,

specific

we shall

find that
an

the whole effort

which

is directed is

by

understanding

of

Sein

by71

by
it

Sein.72

The condition[s]
anything

of man

understanding [in this view say anything Heidegger also

and

given or sent

are]73

comparable

to Kant's

Thing-in-itself,
contains cannot speak of while man

of which one cannot

[sempiternal].74

in

particular not whether

replies

as

follows75:

one

anything

being

prior to man

is;

authentic or

primary time

is

and arises

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

or

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

according to which the God's eternity and uncannot

changeability because, time

even

being dependent on
"prior to the

motion, there

have been in the

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

it] is
the

meaningful and and

indispensable to Heidegger
of

world"

speak of

creation of

case of

"prior to the

man."

emergence of
what

It

seems

thus that one cannot avoid the question as to

man and of

is

responsible

for

the emergence of
ex nihilo nihil

Sein,

or of what

brings them

out of nothing.
.

For:

fit [out

questioned

by

nothing nothing Heidegger: [he says] ex

as

of

comes nihilo

into being] This is apparently omne ens qua ens fit [out of
the Biblical
for76

nothing every being being doctrine of creation [out of Creator-God. [This

through nothing,
nor would

comes out].
nothing].

This

could remind one of no

But Heidegger has

come

place

the
and

suggest, things
nihilo].77

into

being

out of

nothing

ex nihilo et a

This is [of course]

must

not

literally

asserted

literally

denied

by

Heidegger. But

it

not

be

considered

in its literal
fit.78

meaning?

Kant found "nowhere ble any

even an attempt of a proof of ex nihilo nihil

His

own proof establishes this principle as possible experience

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

transcendental deduction in its turn

same
spirit]79

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

to this sensible result?

cannot

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

indissolubly linked with it The difficulty re: the origin

man participates

in the

in-

of man which was encoun

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

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

Marx's (Gestell
the claim of

Ware,

Ding)83

or

that Marx

raised a claim

him

who claimed

to

have

sold the

surpassing by far Brooklyn bridge. In all impor

than

tant respects Heidegger does not make things

obscurer

on the

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

they are. thinking is by reflecting

makes

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

that historicism even in its

a solution cannot

Heideg
lie in
a

form

contains

for him

a problem.

For him

to the supra-temporal or eternal but only

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

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

opinion pollsters or opinion rooted

leaders

both

sides
an

but

of

those who, most

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

worth of what was

Socrates he

stood
85

for,

presupposes or

that we know already

what

it

for

which

stood.

This second,
stems

primary,

question

leads to the

problem of

Socrates in

another sense of

the expression, to the historical prob

not

lem. This
write and

problem of

Socrates

indeed from the fact that Socrates did

for
our

that we depend therefore

knowledge

of

him, i.e.
not

of

his

thought,
tors are

on mediators who were at

the same time transformers. These

and

media

Aristophanes, Plato, Xenophon,

except

Aristotle. Aristotle did

In

know

Socrates

through reports

oral or written.

Socrates is
that he
was

a restatement of what

Xenophon

said.

fact, what he says about Aristophanes, Xenophon and

Plato knew Socrates himself. Of these 3

willing to be a
of
today"

men the

historian,

was

only one who showed Xenophon. This establishes

by

deed

a prima

facie

case

in favor

that "we know

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.

But for Plato it

was a matter of complete

which were

implications

or presuppositions of

the Socratic question "what is

known to Socrates
question;
so much

and which were not: so much was

he dedicated
to say of
prosthe

to

Socrates'

did he forget himself. It is

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

rate, the Platonic Socrates

shall myself

than is the Xenophontic Socrates. I

not
Aristophanes'

there

fore to the Xenophontic Socrates. But this is

ourselves of

feasible if

do

not remind

the Socrates
was

of of

Clouds. believe in the gods, especially the

the stronger, that

That Socrates
gods of the

manifestly guilty
time:

the two stock charges made against the

not

philosophers at the

1)

that

they did
made
over

city,

and

2)

that

they
the

the

weaker argument

they
2

made

the Adikos Logos triumph

the Dikaios Logos. the compulsions

rhetorike.

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

the 2 pursuits is not

immediately
all

clear, for the Aristophanean Socrates

altogether unpolitical and rhetoric seems

phusiologia

be in the
particular

service of politics.

Yet:

liberates from

prejudices, in
upon

the belief in the

gods of

the city; and this liberation

is frowned
in

by

the city; the philosopher-physi

ologist needs therefore rhetoric

order to

defend

himself, his

unpopular activ skill

ity, before
make can use

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

to

the Adikos Logos triumph over the Dikaios Logos. Needless to say, he that skill also for other, in
a sense

lower purposes, like

defrauding
and

debtors. The Aristophanean Socrates is

endurance. stage

a man of

the utmost continence

This fact
Socrates'

alone shows

that the Adikos Logos who appears on the

at

is

not

Adikos Logos,
effect or

Adikos Logos is to the

in its pure, ultimate form. This that the tme community is the community of the
not

least

knowers,

and not

the polis,

that the knowers

as

have

obligations

one another: much closer

the ignoramuses have to

another

little rights

as madmen.

only toward The knower is

knower than he is to his family. The

and

ted

by

paternal

against

killing

one's

authority father

the prohibition against incest

family is constitu by the prohibition

prohibition against

and

marrying

one's mother.

The

incest,
polis,

the obligation of exogamy, calls

an expansion which

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

there were no gods.

questions

all

this:

esti without

Zeus. He thus
polis.

subverts the polis, and yet

words of the

could not

lead his life

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

then, if tacitly, Aristophanes

re asebeia

too.

no phusiologia

but only study

Socrates did

332

Interpretation
proof of

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

re

the

existence and providence of

the gods

diaphthora

Socrates the
kaloka'

perfect gentleman

(on the basis

which

of

his

egkra-

he even taught teia) did not separate wisdom

was

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

even taught ta politika

in

this context, he criticized the established

was a

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

tlemen as Kritias and Alcibiades

responsible

but it

would

be very

unfair

to make

Socrates

for

their misdeeds.
not always

Xenophon's Socrates does

take the high

road of

kalokagathia
a philistine.

but in

doing

so

he became,
of

not a

86E.g. his treatment

economical

friendship

dangerous subversion, but rather friends are chremata ne

Di'

utilitarian,

treatment
=

reducing the
chresimon more of

kingly

art

to the economic

art.

Ultimately:

kalon
86

agathon

Yet: kalokagathia has

than one
the ti

sense.

What did Socrates

such

understand

by
not

kalokagathia^ Knowledge
possessed

esti of

tanthropina

knowledge is

by

the

gentlemen

in the

common sense of the term.

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

to the full

extent

and the

kaloi kagathoi

in

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

but in speaking
people

Socrates'

of

virtue

Xenophon does

not mention at all

Socrates'

harming
virtues.

andreia

does

not occur

in Xenophon's 2 lists
conduct

of

Xenophon
sumes

Socrates'

speaks of
Socrates'

this

under prowess.

exemplary justice and he does

in

campaigns

but he

sub

not give a single example of

Socrates'

military understanding, believed that

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

human things. Yet Xenophon

gives us

very few
is'

of such

discussions;

there are many more Socratic conversations

vice without
esti}9

which exhort

to

virtue or

dehort from

tion than conversations

Socrates'

dealing

with ti

raising any 'What Xenophon points to the

or at all.

ques
core

of

life

or

thought

but does

not present

it sufficiently

The Xenophontic Socrates

all

characterizes

those who worry about the nature of

things as mad: some

of

them hold that

some 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

hold that every into being

and perishes.

He thus delineates the

sane or sober view of the nature of all

things; according to

that wiser view there are

many but

not

beings,
perish.

these beings

( i=

other

things)

never

change,

never come

infinitely many into being and

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

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

was sobria ebrietas

one occasion on
of

how Socrates

acquired

his friends

or rather

his

good

friends

he

acquired

them

by

studying

with them

the writings of the wise men of old and

them the good things

example of

they found in
activity.

them

selecting together with but Xenophon does not give a single

a

by

this blissful

Xenophon introduces
was well

Socratic
Plato.

conversa

tion with Glaukon as follows:

sake of

Socrates
Glaukon

disposed to Glaukon for the

sake of with

Charmides the

son of

and

for the

Accordingly
are

the next chapter reports a conversation of

Socrates

Charmides. We

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

Plato. Instead the

next chapter reports a conversation of peak

-the

Socrates

Ersatz for

Plato,

the philosopher Aristippos: the

conversa

tion with Plato

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

way; but the

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.

led back the

whole argument

hupothesin;

in this way the truth became

through the things
most

In the

other

kind Socrates took his way

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

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
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

remembering Socrates as Xeno

as

also and

primarily

innocent

334

Interpretation
helpful to the
and meanest capacities.

and even

He

conceals

the difference between

Socratic

ordinary kalokagathia

as much as possible,

i.e.

as much as

is

compatible with

intimating
or, if

their conflict.

^Nothing
right

is

more characteristic of gentlemen than respect

for the law

not

for the
It is
never of no

kind

of

law;

you

wish, the wrong kind is

esti

law

at all.

therefore necessary to
raised

raise

the question ti

nomos; but this

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

than the great Perikles.

good a citizen

Socrates'

failure to
on

raise

that question

showed
citizen

how is

he

was.

For laws depend

the regime, but a good

a man who obeys the

law

independently
will

of all changes of regimes.

But,
chy.
law.'

according to a more profound view, "good

citizen"

is

relative

to the re

gime: a good citizen under a

democracy

be

bad

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
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

differ from the young

wife.

"punishment"

that is visited

husband very
of

who marries a close to

On this

point

the Xenophontic

Socrates

comes

the Socrates

of

the Clouds.
of

The Socrates

the Clouds teaches the

omnipotence

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

he liked in deeds. The

greatest example

ing Clouds)
of also as
not

his
is

accusers. aware of

But the Xenophontic Socrates (=

is Xanthippe, to say noth the Socrates of the

the essential limitation of speech. Xenophon indicates this

comrade-in-arms

follows. His

Proxenos

was able

to rule

gentlemen

but

the others

who regarded

him

fear; he was Gorgias. Xenophon, however, the

run of soldiers with

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

gentlemen and non-gentiemen;

he

was good at

doing

as well as at speaking.
or almost

86From Aristotle
and

we

learn

that the sophists

identified

identified the

political art with rhetoric.

Socrates,

we

infer,

was opposed

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
he
refers more

frequently

than to

Plato, Aristotle

and

Cicero taken together.

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

be avoided, but distinction is

not

separation:

cannot

study the philosophic problem without

problem and one cannot

having

up

one's mind on the

historical
made

study the histori

the philosophic

cal problem without problem.

having

up

one's mind

implicitly

on

NOTES

1. The
should we

manuscript contains the

following
should and

sentences

instead

of

these bracketed ones:

"Why

be interested in it?
to the

Why

it be

relevant

to us? There are so many things that

receive an as

concern us so much more

answer

by listening
coined omitted

obviously man from

whom

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

far

as

remember,

the expression 'the problem of

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

the text was

notation above

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

"est"

are written at

the bottom of the page in the manuscript:

"anti-Hegel,

Schopenhauer."

(The

word which we

have

interpreted
present

is difficult to read, in the lecture as delivered.

as

"anti-"

and perhaps we are

in

error about

it.) These

words are not

8.

"His"

is

written

instead

"Nietzsche's"

of

in the
of

manuscript. ever

9. "man has 10. A

ism)"

achieved"

ever

is

written

instead "i.e.

"has

been

achieved"

in the

manuscript. written at

notation above

the line directs us to insert here the

manuscript:

following

phrase, which is

the bottom of the page in the

collective egoism of

the human race (utilitarian

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

notation above the of

line directs
This

to insert here the

following

sentence, which is written

bottom
"he"

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

foundation."

'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

the line to replace

which

has been

crossed out.

In

keeping
Also,
Plato

with this addition, the word

manuscript contains

"points"

has been

made plural
which

by

the addition of the final "s".

crossed out
when

the

here the

following

sentence,

has been

ever, the
and

end of

the

paragraph):

"In the Preface to Beyond Good

says as

and

Evil,

(see, how taking issue with

is Platonism

therewith with

Socrates, Nietzsche

it

were

in passing in

'Christianity

for the
17.

people.'"

"spends"

18. 20.

"the"

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

"his"

"sends"

the manuscript.

19. "it

is"

added above
"this"

the line.

"it"

replaces

in the lecture

as

delivered.

336
21.

Interpretation
"Nietzsche's"

added above the

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

only above the line. 28. The remainder of this

a pause of about

paragraph

is

omitted which

in the lecture

as

delivered. The tape contains

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

the only sound is that

29. At the

end of the

the end of sheet 10 of the manuscript, there

notation points

is

another marginal and thus also to

notation, "Continue

4b."

That

back to the

present

one,

on sheet

4b,

the omitted portion of the text.

This

omitted

portion,

which we will return

to as directed

by

that later notation, continues to what

appears to

be the

end of

the lecture. Our editorial procedure is

continues

further justified
occurrence of

by

the fact that the

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).

Since the tape breaks be

certain

before the
of

notation,

however,

we cannot

how much, if any,

as

included in

Professor Strauss's 30. This

sentences:

oral presentation.

(A

subsequent note will

indicate

the tape breaks off.)

sentence

is

omitted

from the lecture

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

tences in the manuscript.

32. The
infer"

words

"(the "in

are omitted

in the lecture
history,"

as

delivered,

and

the words "we

are also omitted and replaced

by

"one

infer."

can of

33. The

it."

words

are written

instead

"to

in the

manuscript.

Also, instead

of

the words "and are appropriately treated

words

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

35. The 36.

written

phrase

"as far

possible"

is

omitted

in the lecture

delivered.

Instead,

the

next

occurrence of the word

'Thereafter"

is followed

by

the phrase "within the limits of the

possible."

"considering
instead
of

the 'What

is'

unch

of

the human things, these 'What is'es

being

is

these bracketed words in the manuscript.

"the"

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"

added above the

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,

the page in the manu it is included here in the

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

the line directs

us

to insert here the

following
=

words,

which are written at

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

not present

das

Gemachte."

These

words are

in the lecture

as

delivered.
with

48. These last few lecture 49.

50.
as

lines, beginning
"phusis"

the

words

"Heidegger

tries,"

are omitted

from the

delivered.
replaces

"nature"

in the lecture line.

as

delivered.
"men"

"purely"

added above the

"philosophers"

51.
53.

added above
probably"

the line to replace

which

has been

crossed out.

52. "what is
"

omitted

from the lecture "and

he"

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

55. "we necessarily

script.

understand"

is

written

instead

"he necessarily in the

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"

entire parenthesis sentence

is

omitted

from the lecture

"Yet"

as

delivered.

begins instead

with of

the word

in the in the

manuscript.
manuscript.

is A

written

"the human
race

race"

63. "the knowledge that the human

manuscript. notation above

had

origin"

an

added at the

bottom
and

of

the page in the

the line directs us to insert this phrase

basis"

here,
as

it is included here in

the

lecture

as

delivered.
not

64. "is this includes

the

basis"

replaces

"if

not the

in the lecture
that the

delivered.

65. Professor Strauss indicates

which over

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

this ground of grounds is

coeval with man and therefore also not eternal or sempiternal.

But if

this

is so, Sein

cannot

be the

complete ground of man: the emergence of man

ent

(+

the essence of man) requires a ground differ

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.

from Sein. Sein is

condition

its

Sein."

66. This

entire parenthesis
word

is

omitted

from the lecture

as

delivered. Also, Professor Strauss is

sense of

"insistence"

probably using the

upon."

here in its older,

and

Latinate,
is

"standing
of

or

resting

words

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

"not"

a"

awareness-acceptance of

written

instead

these bracketed

68. 70.
71.

is

inadvertently
or written

omitted

from the lecture

"eternal
or

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

72. This is the 73.

74.
"is"

end of the

interpolated
of

section which was mentioned

in

note

65.

is

written

instead

"in this
of

view

in the in the

manuscript. manuscript.

"aidion"

is

written

instead

"sempiternal"

reply"

75. "mentions this 76. "has

for"

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

nihilo et ab nihilo omne ens

ens"

written

instead

of

this sentence in the the words "omne

manuscript.

Also,

the words "qua

are

written, but then crossed out, after

ens."

78. A

notation above

the line directs us to insert here the

following

words,

which are written at

Substanz."

the bottom

of the page

in the

manuscript:

"Grundsatz der Beharrlichkeit der

These

words are not present

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

the tape of the lecture

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."

The bottom line

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 line directs us to insert here the

manuscript.

the

bottom is the

of

the page in the

of the

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

presuppositions, than the

word

mysteries of written underneath

83. The
the

(with the preceding comma) is

the word

in

manuscript.

84. A
at

notation above

the line

directs

us to

insert here the

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

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

"Continue
we with

to which we referred in note

omitted so

29,

and which of

directs

us

back to the

portion of the

lecture that begins

have

far. At the
which

beginning
has been

this portion of the

lecture,

a new paragraph

the

following

sentence,

crossed out: stood

tion of the

worth of what

Socrates
that

for,

nay, can one properly

stood."

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

know in the first nearly the

place what

it is for

which

he

notice, this sentence is

4b."

same as the one

immediately

precedes

the marginal notation, "Continue

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

that Professor Strauss wrote the

word

here instead

"formed."

of

"one"

by

the

editors.

words

"than

conversations

dealing

with

ti estr are

added

beneath the line in the

90.

"are"

added

by

the

editors.