SCIENTIST: If you were right, then, while examining the horizon-essence of the human, we would have to already be advancing in the direction of the path indicated to us by your answer. I would in addition like to note the following, if for once too I may speak paradoxically: The horizonal essence of the human—by which is meant that, in looking into a horizon, the human transcends the objects and his own representing [91] of these objects—and this relationship between the human and the horizon, to which relationship the horizon belongs as a member, in sum, this entire relationship would itself be the horizon into which our conversation is now thinking.
SCHOLAR: I don’t find your formulation to be so paradoxical at all, but rather, in spite of all its awkwardness, to be excellent.
GUIDE: It is so fitting that it enables the direction and object of our conversation to be more clearly delimited.
SCHOLAR: With regard to the essence of the human just explicated, we can say: The human is, as the animal rationale, the living being who thinks. However, insofar as horizonality—that is to say, the relation to the horizon—is what distinguishes the human, while thinking is the distinguishing characteristic of the human, thinking must, as it were, embody the essence of horizonality. Thinking is really nothing other than the representational setting-before [Vor-stellen] and setting-toward [Zu-stellen] of the horizon, that is, of the circle-of-vision, in which the outward look and the essence of objects—Plato named it the Idea of things—becomes32 visible to us.
SCIENTIST: Our conversation’s question about the essence of thinking is thus a question about the distinguishing characteristic of the living beings that we ourselves are.
SCHOLAR: Our conversation is then really concerned with the essence of the human.
SCIENTIST: To formulate and answer the question of the human is the task of philosophical anthropology, which today is repeatedly heralded by everyone to be the obvious foundation for all philosophy. [92]
SCHOLAR: It seems to me as though it has suddenly become quite bright over our path.
SCIENTIST: And I am almost shocked that we did not settle from the start on this simple and unambiguous horizon for our inquiry into the essence of thinking, and thereby spare ourselves the many detours.
SCHOLAR: If it had right away become clear to us that the question of the essence of thinking is an anthropological one, we could have
32. The singular “becomes” would seem to be a grammatical error in the text, since the subject—namely “the outward look and the essence of objects”—is plural. But presumably this is intentional, stressing that these are thought to be the same thing.—Tr.