In spite of the influence noted above—who would let themselves think about the fact that—it is all essentially different, worlds apart?
[151]
14. “Philology” and Being and Time
The love (will to Being) of the word.
If it even is “service to the folk,” then it is the first and only service for the future, which philosophy needs to take over and to perform: teaching one how “to read”—see Nietzsche.
“The folk”—what is that; the ambiguity and counterfeit currency in this word.
But hastily mustering up new discoveries with the help of “folklife” and the “folkish” and a “folk connection” is useless. Here, the old, dismal condition of philology from the last 100 years is simply maintained—and directed towards other things—this is not even “used”; instead, in the industrial enterprise that is science, it gets leveled down, flattened, and turned into a figure of speech.
In Being and Time, however, there is nothing that one could go and fetch for such purposes—indeed, there is no such thing there at all which, in the twinkling of an eye and in a popular way (see theology and its use!), one could use to make a tool. Philosophy, and even the philosophy in Being and Time, stands completely outside of this region—even though, indeed precisely because, it makes reference to “sciences”; this is a deficiency.
But what is to be learned from this? Hermeneutics! And perhaps we should also be required to one day apply these principles to the treatise Being and Time.
15. Being—time—οὐσία
If time stands still in the consideration, then presentness [Anwesenheit] opens it-self up in the present [in Gegenwart]– i.e., Being and thus “form”—εἶδος, τέχνη—φύσις (see Schiller, “Letters on the Aesthetical Education of Man,” p. 251 (middle).
Being out of time, i.e., in Being, time is taken in victory—but not eliminated—on the contrary.
[152]
16. The previous opinion of Being and Time
Many things have been said about it; but only one thing has been sought, albeit in vain: that the measure for judgment is drawn from its ownmost question, i.e.,