there is clearly a large problematic waiting to be developed in the different ways of having an object, "of apprehending and defining it by way of familiarization [Kenntnis vs. Erkenntnis], the specific ways of illuminating each and every experience" (18). Thus (in a remark that postdates the course), if we had taken our starting point from Plato's Allegory of the Cave, philosophy could have been more originally described as "illuminative" rather than "cognitive" comportment (54). Such a comportment more readily comprehends that radical "having" involved in interrogative illumination, which "first discloses the authentic horizon of factic life" (37). The movement of life as well as of philosophy is a movement of illumination (128, 135).

But what dominates at this stage of the orientation to Aristotle, in keeping with the repeated concern for the fundamental "problem of the historical," are the ways in which we "have" mobility, the "movedness of life in which and through which it is." The problem of facticity is a "κίνησις-problem" (117). This then becomes the guiding problem for the specific interpretations of Aristotle that now follow.


This was a four-hour lecture course, the longest of the early Freiburg period, providing ample time for the extensive and innovative translation paraphrases of texts, selected largely from the Metaphysics and Physics, which Heidegger developed line by line in class. Heidegger opts for the freer form of translation, backed by meticulous and exhaustive expository supplements, in order to loosen the sedimented expressions of the tradition and draw out the context of meaning out of which the texts speak. This style of exegesis will in later courses become Heidegger's hallmark, recurring in other guises en route to other thoughts. The course is therefore not only substantial but also important. After the turmoil of the previous semester, Heidegger now asserts himself as master of the Aristotelian opus, pressing new and unsuspected dimensions out of its well-worked but rich hold.8

With an ever-clearer sense of the intertwined ontological and historical character of philosophy, Heidegger seeks in this course to arrive at a basic understanding of what is called the "ontology" of Aristotle, who represents the classical source of that discipline. In what particular research context did the ontological question of being first arise? What motivated the question and in what research direction was it taken? What role did the question play in Aristotle's philosophy and why did it assume that role? It is therefore not simply a matter of understanding Aristotle's