321
between being and beings is always already proceeding in the Dasein' s temporality, temporality is the root and the ground for both the possibility and, properly understood, the factical necessity of the objectification of the given beings and the given being. The given beings are to be met with directly in the factical Dasein in the direction in which its existentiell comportment tends. Beings are given in the distinctive sense that it is exactly they which lie in view in a primary way for the Dasein and its existence. Beings are just simply present there: that which is is the positum [what is laid down there], and indeed it is present not only as nature in the broadest sense but also as Dasein itself. The positive sciences constitute themselves in the objectification of beings where the objectification holds itself in the direction of the tendency of everyday direct apprehension.
Being is indeed also already unveiled in the understanding of being; nevertheless, the Dasein as existent does not comport itself toward being as such directly, not even to its own being as such in the sense that it might perhaps understand its being ontologically; but since the Dasein is occupied with its own ability-to-be, this can-be is understood primarily as the can-be of the being that in each case I myself am. Being is, to be sure, also familiar and consequently in some manner given, but it is not to be met with in the direction of tendency of everyday-factical existence as comportment toward beings. The objectification of that which is, in which the positive sciences variously constitute themselves in conformity with the intrinsic content and mode of being of the specific region of being, has its center in the projection, in each case, of the ontological constitution of the beings which are to become objects. This projection of the ontological constitution of a region of beings, which is the essential nature of the objectification that is foundational for the positive sciences, is nevertheless not an ontological investigation of the being of the beings in question, but still has the character of pre-ontological awareness, into which, to be sure, an already available knowledge of ontological determinations of the relevant beings can enter and factually always does enter. It was thus that modem natural science constituted itself in the objectification of nature by way of a mathematical projection of nature. In this projection the basic determinations were exhibited which belong to nature in general, although their ontological character was not realized. Galileo, who accomplished this primary step, developed this projection from and in a knowledge about basic ontological concepts of nature like motion, space, time, matter, which he took over from ancient philosophy or from Scholasticism, without merely taking them over in this specific form. We cannot here enter further into the problems of the objectification that is constitutive for the positive sciences in the sense of the projection of the constitution of being. We need only keep in mind that the positive sciences of beings, too, precisely in what first of all gives them