You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
If any sort of philosophical ‘confrontation’ … is going to be in any sense fruitful, the critic must accordingly decide to stand upon the ground Heidegger has selected. Whether he can remain thereon is a question that can only be decided through the exposition itself.
Our facing this difficulty that stems from language should keep us from hastily recasting the language of the thinking here attempted into the coin of a terminology, and from speaking right away about perdurance, instead of devoting all our efforts to thinking through what has been said. For what was said was said in a seminar. A seminar, as the word implies, is a place and an opportunity to sow a seed here and there, a seed of thinking which some time or other may bloom in its own way and bring forth fruit.
These days psychoanalysts are often asked to consider their work in terms of the influential and monumentally difficult philosopher Martin Heidegger. For reasons I present below, there is much room in Heidegger's sort of speculation for varying perspectives, even among specialists. Thus I have every reason to expect vigorous disagreement with the perspective I present here. Readers of any philosophy may differ about what