88
The being of beings and the history of “truth” have the same “time.”
The extinguishing of being as “nihilation” of “beings.”
89
Forward thrusts (projectively formative ones) into the happening of being and outbreaks from it.
90
Philosophy is the science, and precisely for that reason it makes no sense to speak of “scientific philosophy.”
The “sciences” are “philosophies” (Aristotle). Therefore, if I say philosophy is not a “science,” it does not merely mean not an “individual science” but also not one of the pluralistic philosophies.13
“Science” not the higher concept for philosophy; instead, the latter the concept of the former.
The concept of science cannot be drawn out of the factual organization of the extant “sciences,” but only out of the idea.
91
Necessary in order to rebuff the entire perverted labeling of my endeavors as “philosophy of existence” or “existential philosophy”:
1. clarification and grounding of the concept of existence;
2. clarification and grounding of the concept of philosophy. Cf. above, p. 33.
92
The usual (today only fallen into the mere opposite) idolization of science and of its accomplishments. Upon closer inspection, as regards the superficial, the technical, and the task and compilation of immediate “results,” there is agreement everywhere and there is “progress”— but as regards everything essential, where the issue is knowledge in the proper sense, everything splits apart and is primarily a matter of a lamentable dilettantism.
Thus philosophy has no occasion at all to accept this science—not even mathematics—as a model; cf. the uncertainty and brittleness of the “foundations” of mathematics.
13. [The sense would seem to call for “pluralistic sciences.”—Trans.]