Seminar in Le Thor 1969 [73–74]

Accordingly, project is then only taken to be a structure of subjectivity— which is how Sartre takes it, by basing himself upon Descartes (for whom ἀλήθεια as ἀλήθεια does not arise).

In order to counter this mistaken conception and to retain the meaning of “project” as it is to be taken (that of the opening disclosure), the thinking after Being and Time replaced the expression “meaning of being” with “truth of being.” And, in order to avoid any falsification of the sense of truth, in order to exclude its being understood as correctness, “truth of being” was explained by “location of being” [Ortschaft]— truth as locality [Örtlichkeit] of being. This already presupposes, however, an understanding of the place-being of place. Hence the expression topology of be-ing [Topologie des Seyns], which, for example, one finds in Aus der Erfahrung des Denkens; also see the text edited by Franz Larese: “Die Kunst und der Raum.”73

September 4

Some additions were first made to the protocol of September 2.

We have moved away too quickly from the distinction between ὑποκείμενον and φαινόμενον. At that opportunity we did not sufficiently emphasize what it is that both are in relation to, despite their differences from one another:

a) The φαινόμενον actually bears a relation to and always presupposes as its horizon ἀλήθεια, an ἀλήθεια, however, constantly understood already and in advance from λέγειν (as indeed by Homer; on this see “Hegel and the Greeks”74). This first and decisive understanding of ἀλήθεια as the ἀλήθεια of the λόγος barred the Greeks from the possibility of thinking ἀλήθεια as ἀ-λήθεια (as unconcealment); that is, as clearing [Lichtung]. Important here is that only the thought of the clearing of being is able to bring the necessary clarity to make the λόγος itself understandable.

b) The ὑποκείμενον is the being (therefore the φαινόμενον), but only insofar as it is explicitly viewed within a λέγειν τι κατά τίνος (a “saying something about something”). It is then remarked that, in a certain way, the Aristotelian investigation of language accomplishes the most original interpretation of language, one that was already dominant in the poetry of Homer (as epic poetry). In Greek, naming always already and in advance signifies making a proposition [Aussagen], and to make a proposition means to make something known as something. This understanding of language predetermines the region in which Homeric poetry moves (on this, consider the breadth of a word from Mallarmé: “Since the great Homeric errancy, poetry has entirely strayed from its course”75).

Heidegger then emphasizes that for Hölderlin, on the contrary, to