clest I'engagement de l'ktre [thinking is the engaFment of being]. Herethe possessive form "de
is supposed to express both subjective andobjective genitive. In this regard "subject" and "object" are inappropriateterms of n~etaphysin, hich very early on in
the form of Occidental"lo@cn and seized control of the interpretation of language.
today can only begin to descry what is concealed in that occurrence.The liberation of language from grammar into a more original essentialframework is reserved for thought and poetic creation. Thinking is notmerely
for and by heings, in the sense of whateveris actually present in our current situation. Thinking is
byand for the truth of being. The history of heing is never past but standsever before us; it sustains and defines every
condition etrif~intion tm~aine. n
order to learn how to experience the aforementioned essence of thinkingpurely, and that means at the same time to carry it through, we must freeourselves from the technical interpretation of thinking. Thebeginnings ofthat interpretation reach back to Plato andAristotle.
ake thinkingitself to he a
a process of deliberation in service to doing and mak-ing. But here deliberation is already seen from the perspective of
For this reason thinking, when taken for itself, is not "practi-cal." The characterization of thinking as
and the determination ofknowing as "theoretical" comportment occur already within the "techni-cal" interpretation of thinking. Such characterization is a reactive attemptto rescue thinking and preserve its autonomy over against acting and doing.Since then "philosophy" has been in the constant predicament of having tojustify
existence before the "sciences." It believes it can do that most ef-fectively hy elevating itself to the rank of a science. But such an effort is theabandonment of the essence of thinking. Philosophy is hounded by the fearthat it loses prestige and validity if it is not a science. Not to he a science istaken as a failing that is equivalent to heing unscientific. Being," as the ele-ment of thinking, is abandoned hy the technical interpretation of thinking."I.ogic," beginning with the Sophists and Plato, sanctions this explanation.
Thinking is judged by a standard that does not measure up to it.Such judgment may he compared to the procedure of trying to evaluate theessence and powen of a fish hy seeing how long
can live on dry land. Fora long time now, all
long, thinking has been stranded on dry land. Canthen the effort to return thinking to
element be called "irrationalismn?
hinking: rununciativr saying in rcsponsc