Whether and to what extent the essential determination of a thing (for example, poem, history, etc.), whether and to what extent this corresponds to the essential domain of the respective region of beings — that is, how matters stand with the truth upon which what is in each case correct is grounded — that is another question. This is not decided within science, nor even asked there, and yet it must nevertheless be thought. What matters is that, in relation to the technical essence of science, one sees its authentic — if you will, spiritual — essence, the deeper essential domain of scientific research; that there are not simply sciences which, once institutionally established, proceed mechanically as operations. What matters is the inner knowing of the worthy-to-be-thought in that which is researched. Then this researchable and worthy-of-research itself belongs on the side of thinking, which in this case stands opposite poetry. — — —
(Pause; written questions are submitted.)
FIRST QUESTION: Has the ontological difference not, in fact, already been thought earlier, for example in Plato, Plotinus, Schelling?
HEIDEGGER: Where has the ontological difference ever been named? Schelling speaks of the “Ungrund” [unground]. In his later period he makes the distinction between positive and negative philosophy. But the decisive point is that he does not see as a problem the issue of the connection and unity, or the ground, of this distinction between what he calls positive and negative. He makes the distinction. That such a distinction was made is proven by the fact that there has been and still is “metaphysics,” the crossing over from beings to Being. All this is enacted within the dimension of the ontological difference. But metaphysics as such can never think the dimension within which it itself essentially occurs. So it is also with Plato.