[196]
111. Being and Time
One aim was not just to overcome subjectivism but rather to overcome the subject altogether as the approach for the interpretation of Being and the domain in which to show it—why is that?; it was to thus move away from the “subject”—in a fundamental-ontological way, and that also means ontically.
112. Being and Time
Here subjectivism—there objectivism (they neutralize each other)
Or even:
Here atheism and nihilism—there theologizing and mysticism.
All of this is because one has no idea what the question is and searches for nothing and is capable of nothing, not even of raising the question.
113. Brief description of the transformed way to the same goal (Being and Time)
The contradictory statements about Being and Time: here subjectivism—here elimination of the individual—this and the misjudgment that Being and Time is nothing special, but rather the most traditional thing that can be thought. Which one hits the mark? Neither the one, nor the other (statement), because the question lies deeper.
But why are these statements possible? Because Being and Time is not orderly—for various reasons; on the whole, it is a way, and the path gets interrupted prior to the decisive step.
The way is aimed at the ground of beyng (not the cause of beings). This aim remains firm—if anything, it becomes more urgent and necessary—but it is still the way!
As it is not taken as projection, and because it is not related to the understanding-of-Being, but rather to the happening of Being {Seinsgeschehnis}, i.e., (event) {Ereignis}, the basic movement of the appropriating event must be presented by the work of art [?].
[197]
114. The interest in “particulars” (“existence”) and
Being and Time
suggested by Being and Time ➔ anthropology.