With resoluteness, we stand in the region ofhistory, not in any arbitrary realm of incidents, but in that which we in an emphatic sense call history and now have to deal with.
We are, of course, not presuming now to develop here, let alone to answer, the question concerning the essence of history. On the other hand, it must be said that the question concerning the essence of history is none other than our guiding question: "Who is the human being?" For, only the human being has history, because only he alone can be history insofar as he is and [is] according to the circumstances.
What is history? It seems as if we were going farther and farther away from our theme. We began with the question: "What is language?" This led us to the questions: "What is the human being?"—"Who is the human being?"—"Who is the self?"—"What is Volk?"—"What is decision?"—"What is history?" How do we arrive in the process at the theme of logic: "What is the essence of language?"—We are dealing continuously with the essence of language, without it being transparent to us.
The question concerning the essence of history is subject entirely lo the same difficulties as the guiding question. For this reason, the question is to be kept in the framework of our discussions. Nonetheless, it is necessary to give a broader overview of the essence of history in order to comprehend what matters to us here.
§ 16. The determination of the essence of history is grounded in the character of history of the respective era. The essence or truth determined by the historical Dasein
We dispense with giving a report of the up to now and presently valid conception of history, or with criticizing it. Rather, we place at the