that is, we should know that intellectualism is just the impoverished contemporary offshoot and derivative of a preeminent position of thinking that was long prepared and was built up by means of Western metaphysics. It is important to prune the outgrowths of contemporary intellectualism. But its position is not thereby shaken in the least, it is not even touched. The danger of falling back into intellectualism persists precisely for those who want to struggle against it. A merely contemporary struggle against contemporary intellectualism makes those who defend the rightful use of the traditional intellect seem justified. No, they are not intellectualists, but they share the same roots. This reactive flight of the spirit into the past, which stems in part from natural inertia and in part from a deliberate effort, is now becoming fertile soil for political reaction. The misinterpretation of thinking and the misuse of misinterpreted thinking can be overcome only by a genuine and original thinking, and by nothing else. In order to provide a new foundation for such thinking, we must above all else return to the question of the essential connection [94|131] of thinking to Being—but this means unfolding the question of Being as such. Overcoming traditional logic does not mean the abolition of thinking and the rule of mere feelings. Instead, it means a more originary, rigorous thinking that belongs to Being.
After this general characterization of the separation between Being and thinking, we now ask more definitely:
1. How does the original unity of Being and thinking essentially unfold as the unity of φύσις and λόγος?
2. How does the original disjunction of λόγος and φύσις come to pass?
3. How does λόγος arise and gain preeminence?