Nonetheless this diversity precisely does not consist in the heterogeneity of perspectives and doctrines. Cf. above pp. 36, 20.
All historiography finds only sameness in history. It takes the diverse only as the staffage of the same. Perhaps all “history” is also nothing other than this sameness permitted by historiography. The dominant meaning of history is based on the servility of historiography | that one has forced history into in advance.
The Christian churches are the slaveholders for Great Fascism [Großfaschismus].
As one calls out in the woods, thus it echoes back. That is not the case for the saga of thinking if the woods are the public sphere, whose opinion one cannot at all discern amongst so many points of view. It may, however, be the case if beyng is the woods. But then even the saga of thinking is already and only the echo of stillness. It remains a mystery how that comes to be.
Thinkers are even rarer than “poets”; for the fantasy of beyng is the most proximal. Humans leap over that more quickly than everything else. That is the source of the numerous failed philosophical talents. The one group becomes garrulous and hence bad researchers. The others become reflective and thus bad poets. Still others become speculative and hence bad theologians who talk with the help of some metaphysics or the other. The mass of people who latch onto philosophy with great interest and effort are recruited from this society of castoffs. There are also philosophers who make a name for themselves by approaching this group of awaiting disciples. What then arises from this communication does not even share a name with thinking. It calls itself philosophy pure and simple and takes credit for the achievements of philosophy.
In the face of the fantasy (φαντασία) of beyng, human imagination is only the stammering of a rapacious representation.
Once all thinkers think the selfsame and are only thinkers insofar as it is allotted to them, does it not then end up that the saying of the thinkers only distinguishes itself in that the individual thinkers only present divergent formulas for the selfsame and thus formulate the whole slightly differently. Certainly—everything comes down to this formulation; it is not as if the thinkers sought this diversity; they hold on to the selfsame; and in the process the other formulation emerges. Yet