The occasion for this approach to time is the interpretation of the Aristotelian interpretation of Being. Its confirmation is Kant’s schematism.
Interrogating both in the face of the Being and thinking that predominates.
Against the “logic of Being,” on the basis of the fundamental experience of the oblivion of Being as an end. It is all tentative groping, and at the same time it commits itself too early! The projection it too short and too narrow, and therefore the leap-into Dasein is too confused, too foregrounding.
The deepest error in the matter is the inadequate interpretation of the temporalness of Being as well as the estimation that this interpretation is transcendentally adequate and just needs to be grasped more originally.
Going together with this is the genuine error in the procedure and stance: scientificity. It aims at research. The essentiality of philosophy as creating is not ventured because it is impeded by the either/or that is equally mistaken on both sides: either science or world-view.
Philosophy is neither one of these, but rather just itself.
Hence, the individual deceptions; see Running Comments, p. 15 a and 18. Thus everywhere there is that which is coming from outside (from where?) and that which is going toward something?! instead of essential positing [Wesenssetzung] from out of the fathoming [Ergründendem] leap-into Dasein (event).
Both errors (the one in the matter and the one in the process) lead to Dasein being identified with the human being and vice versa. On this tangled up identification and where it first breaks through, see “On the Essence of Ground” III, Comments p. 15 ff.; Running Comments on Being and Time, p. 31.
[177]
65. On the confrontation with Being and Time
The “methodism” of fundamental ontology
What goes together with the fundamental-ontological clumping together of all questioning is the phenomenological existential-transcendental-ontological “methodism”—constantly urging that things be designated—given—measured and the like.
This false methodism wants to present the originality of metaphysical questioning as scientific strictness. But this questioning is not embraced, and methodism has the upper hand everywhere, so much so that it is still constantly discussed. All of that sets the endeavor adrift into the domain of an impossible scientificity; the counterpart to that is existentiell worry; what is attempted is this: taking both of these together. But with all of this, what is essential is not achieved. However—when it is now looked at backwards, it prepares for a transition and an overcoming.