The path.—In the decisive experience of the oblivion of being in 1921(Cf. Remarks I, p. 32), in which being itself in its truth was approached in thinking as the task of thinking, truth illuminated itself more essen tially from the perspective of Ἀ-λήθεια, in such a manner that Λἠθη was thought in conjunction with it, initially as “oblivion” and yet still fumbling about around it, until “Da-sein” in the ek-static, existential sense was initially experienced. The essence of “care”14 first elucidated in the summer semester 1923 is related to being itself and therefore specifically to the human essence that stands as thrown within the projection of being—thrown: i.e. in such a way that the projection does not first re-present being as something “subjective,” as, for ex ample, in the sense of a “subjective” placement and planning. Nonetheless, “the transcendental” is still held onto in Being and Time, al though it is not grounded in “subjectivity,” rather it is experienced from the ek-static essence of Da-sein. (Cf. p. 53).
Teaching and teaching.—“Teaching” can mean presenting a doctrine, espousing a purportedly cohesive system of truths and seeking affirmation for them through the very manner of providing proof for the system.
But “teaching” can also mean: letting learn, namely thinking as the letting-be of being. Closer still: letting learning be learned—the capacity to listen, reflective listening, and this is the essential element in the appropriation of all thinking said aloud: in “reading” that gathers itself around the task of thinking.
Teaching: letting reading be learned.
But what to do that if the dictatorship of the public sphere renders reading impossible through the dominion of the “newspaper” under the guise of building up its “readership”?
What has long dominated, but was never recognized clearly enough in its arbitrariness, is now slowly coming to light (Cf. below p. 82ff.):
the relation of the human to “being” is understood as the relation to “beings as a whole” and is only understood in this way. They re duce the possibilities of this relation to a “simple” either-or: either one
14. {Martin Heidegger, Ontologie (Hermeneutik der Faktizität), vol. 63 of Gesamtausgabe (Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1988), 101–104} [Martin Heidegger, Ontology: The Hermeneutics of Facticity, trans. John van Buren (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999), 78–80.—Trans.]