See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/49614268

The Foundation of Philosophy and Atheism in

Heidegger's Early Works - Prolegomena to an
Existential-Ontological Perspective

Article in Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies · March 2009
Source: DOAJ

CITATION READS

1 2,423

1 author:

István Király V
Babeş-Bolyai University
128 PUBLICATIONS 20 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Question : "What is the Man" ? View project

History of the PHILOBIBLON - Transylvanian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research in Humanities, Cluj University Press
(1996 - ) h View project

All content following this page was uploaded by István Király V on 05 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 KIRÁLY V. ISTVÁN Király V. István
Associate Professor, Ph. D. at
the Department of
THE FOUNDATION OF PHILOSOPHY AND Philosophy, “Babes-Bolyai”
ATHEISM IN HEIDEGGER’S EARLY WORKS University, Cluj-Napoca,
Romania. Author of the
– PROLEGOMENA TO AN EXISTENTIAL- books: Határ – Hallgatás –
ONTOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE – Titok (1996); Filozófia és Itt-
Lét (1999); Fenomenologia
existențialã a secretului –
The paper analyzes, from a perspective which is itself
Încercare de filosofie aplicatã
existential-ontological, the way in which in an early
(2001); Moartea și experiența
text of Martin Heidegger, Phänomenologische
muririi – In(tro)spectie
Interpretationen zu Aristoteles (Anzeige der hermeneutischen
metafizicã și filosofico-
Situation) [1922] – which had already outlined some
aplicativã (2002), Kérdõ
determinative elements of the ideas expounded in Being
jelezés (2004) ; Halandóan
and Time –, the meditation on the always living and
lakozik szabadságában az
current conditions and hermeneutical situation of
ember (2007). E-mail:
philosophizing expanded in fact into an inquiry about
philobib@bcucluj.ro
the origins, grounds, essence and sense of philosophy
as such. Meditation in and through which philosophy
identifies itself and is founded on the one hand exactly
as a mode of existence of the mortal “human Dasein” Key Words:
(menschliches Dasein), that is a factic mode of existence Heidegger, foundation of
of this, philosophy, on the other hand, itself originates philosophy, facticity,
from and in man’s factic life exactly with the aim of phenomenology,
being the modality through which this being – namely hermeneutics, death,
ourselves – returns towards the problematization of his atheism, philosophy of
existential possibilities even by taking upon himself the religion
burden and “weight” of radical interrogation. Which therefore goes and must go itself and
resolutely – because if this entirely “without God” and consequently a-theist – to the
historical and ontological roots of a present con-temporarized (mitzeitigt) both with the past
and the future existential horizons of the assumed factic possibilities.

„Die Sterblichen sind die Menschen.

Sie heissen Sterblichen, weil sie sterben können.
Sterben heisst: den Tod als Tod vermögen.
Die vernünftigen Lebewesen müssen erst
Sterblichen werden.”
Martin Heidegger 1

Any discussion about “foundation” is usually realized through direct

or implicit reference to that which Leibniz formulated as the principle of
the sufficient reason. Or, essentially this principle puts in motion – namely:
brings to questioning – first of all and exactly the question: Why?
When we discuss, however, problems such as the question of the
foundation of philosophy, from the beginning it seems to be decisive to try
to clarify – but also to enforce – the conditions and hermeneutical

Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 8, 22 (Spring 2009): 115-128
Király V. István The Foundation of Philosophy and Atheism in Heidegger’s Early Works

situation of such a meditation. And, first of all, we ought to specify and

outline the fact that the existential-ontological perspective from which we
have decided to prefigure the problem of the foundation of philosophy was
not, of course, “chosen” accidentally from a vast group of indifferently
convenient “possibilities”… and neither was this choice determined only
by the author’s “professional” inclination and “specialization”, but it was
actually put in motion by the sole motive that, on the one hand it belongs
to… and on the other hand it aims exactly at that horizon and domain, to
which the problem of the founding of philosophy itself belongs, and from
which it wells in its turn in a completely organic and essential way.
Since these aspects also belong to the hermeneutical clarification of
the situation and of the motivations in and from which the present inquiry is
outlined and unfolds, it is surely necessary to present them in detail. For
the fact that the ontological-existential perspective on the one hand
belongs to, and, on the other hand, aims exactly at the horizon and domain
to which the issue of the foundation of philosophy belongs also constitutes
in fact the motive – likewise essential – for which, we, at least, are basically
and in general interested in this “problem”. However, we would also like to
specify from the beginning that we here use the term “interested” in its
accepted basic and etymological sense. Since, as it is well known, the word
“interested” originates – etymologically – from the Latin inter esse, which
means exactly “to be inside and between” the elements of something… or
to be between something which constitutes its common aim and affiliation
right through the existence of that which is aimed at in its turn as being
exactly “between”. To be therefore “interested in something” means in fact
to be – more precisely: to be situated – inside and in the “cracks” that occur
on the horizon of that something… and the explicit efforts made to
understand and interpret this “something” are nothing else in fact than
endeavours to understand, and also to realize precisely the problematic of
this insideness and the problematic of this “being between”.
In brief: in a problem such as the foundation of philosophy we theme
nothing that is “exterior” to us or to philosophy, and consequently nothing
alien to our being, on the contrary, we theme our own existence exactly as
philosophizing and exactly because we exist philosophizing. The decisive and
essential motive because of which I am or we are/can be really interested in
the problem of philosophy and its foundation is therefore that “I myself” at
least know myself to be a thinker and I am concerned with being a thinker,
and, because of this I – simply – would like, as far as it is possible, to
understand this thing and its significations. I would like to specify –
however and again – that the expression “as far as possible” must be taken
in its original sense, for it is meant to communicate precisely the fact that
we should attempt to conceive, understand and outline the cause of the
foundation of philosophy exactly as a possibility which belongs to us and to
our world.

Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 8, 22 (Spring 2009) 116
Király V. István The Foundation of Philosophy and Atheism in Heidegger’s Early Works

Consequently, if we discuss here the question of the foundation of

philosophy, this must mean – in fact and mainly – the question and the
clarification of the question: Why does one – why do I also “do” – philosophy?
Namely: Why do people essentially do philosophy? Or, more precisely: Why does
man philosophize?
In the course of this inquiry it must be very clear (for us) from the
beginning and it must also be assumed expressly that, on the one hand, by
formulating and asking effectively and clearly this question, we raise at the
same time – and somehow automatically – a series of other questions, and,
on the other hand, the exigency of the “sufficiency” of reasons as the
principle of sufficient reason also requires from us implicitly the effort of
not leaving these – apparently collateral – questions in the obscure zone of
presuppositions, but of asking them and formulating them – that is: asking
them – as explicitly as possible. Or, the first of these questions which
usually remain and, moreover, are left unclarified when the questions
regarding philosophy and its foundations are asked, is for sure the
question: Who does actually philosophize? Then – together with this – the
question: To whom and how does in fact philosophy “belong”?
Therefore we can state that, though it seems to be evident that only
the clarification of these questions – namely: Why does one philosophize?
and Who is the one who philosophizes? – could also lead us to realize and
outline What is and could philosophy be? and What would be its “object” and its
task, vocation? etc. (questions connected therefore as organically as possible
to the foundations and, consequently, to the essence of philosophy).
Philosophizing itself is however usually regarded as being rather the
agitation and secretion of a kind of weightless, schematic “spirit of truth”,
so “lofty”, “refined” and “distilled”, that it becomes indeed perfectly
“colourless”, “odourless” and really without any “taste”… And/or a kind of
“universal” (indifferently professional, professorial and university)
“science of the universal”… Or, on the contrary, the mechanical
performing of some circumscribed disciplinary and “terminological”
“investigations”, in the case of which it is no longer necessary to clarify on
every occasion the problem of bases and of foundation.
The – inevitably brief – analysis that follows will therefore focus
exactly on these questions. And in this undertaking they will use the
chances of a clarifying dialogue with an early Heideggerian text, which –
without necessarily being less known to the “public” and to the specialists
in question – is however less present and “weighed” not only in the studies
dedicated to his philosophy, but also in the inquiries regarding the bases
and the foundation of philosophy.
We are referring to a short text entitled Phenomenological
Interpretations of Aristotle having the subtitle Indications of the Hermeneutical
Situation. 2 This was written by Martin Heidegger in the year 1922 with the
aim of endorsing his simultaneous candidature for two posts of
“extraordinary professor”, one at the University of Göttingen, the other at

Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 8, 22 (Spring 2009) 117
Király V. István The Foundation of Philosophy and Atheism in Heidegger’s Early Works

the University of Marburg. He was rejected by the former university –

mainly on account of the spirit of his investigations not being in
conformity with the tradition of the respective university –, but accepted
at Marburg due mainly to the positive reviews about this text by the
renowned Paul Natorp and Nicolai Hartmann. 3
We must specify that in the Heideggerian text – expressis verbis – there
is nothing about “foundation”. It speaks, however, extremely condensed,
but also amply about PHILOSOPHY, about its essence, sense and specificity.
And on this occasion – in the confluence of thoughts – an exceptionally
powerful, radical and articulated meditation is outlined in the text also
about the “foundation” of philosophy.
Of course, such a phenomenological and hermeneutical investigation
does not lay the bases, and, evidently, it does not discuss the “foundation”
of philosophy by presenting it as some “original” or “primordial science”
(Urwissenschaft) which is to be recovered, and out of which originate and
then historically ramify the different scientific and existential disciplines
and/or domains. Neither is this inquiry aimed at the philosophicality of the
inner (epistemological) conditions of formal and/or thematic derivation –
from “axiomatic” principles or bases –, ensuring the “coherence” of the
theories from within some realizations or “cognitive disciplines”, in this
case: of philosophy. No. The well founded and “founding”, original and
fundamental character of philosophy here originates from and resides
exactly in the essence of that which is identified and named its “object”,
and – closely connected with this – mainly from and in its sense and
signification of being express activity and assuming. Activity and assuming in
which – and through which – philosophy itself is actually founded.
In other words, philosophy is founded and it lays foundations itself
exactly in and through the fact that it is recognized, revealed and clarified
as being – itself – a mode of existence of the Dasein. More precisely, a mode of
existence of the being named yet in these texts man. Philosophy no longer
recognizes and identifies itself as being simply a “theory” – either of
something which otherwise would be “non”-theoretical, or in the sense of
an instrument specialized in reaching some specific cognitive objects and
objectives (may they be outlined or, on the contrary, stratospheric and
ideal) –, but “only” as “one” of the different modes in and through which
man realizes and leads its existence factually and effectively in and through time.
Since it is exactly man who philosophizes and it is exactly man who exists
– therefore: is – philosophizing. And only the being which exists
philosophizing, only that can in general depict existence as existence, that
is, his existence; the existence and the being as being a problem… open to the
possible. Only man can – and even must – therefore problematize himself as
a being with respect to his character and relation of being… that is, as a
being which is bound to and oriented towards the other beings, namely the
world.

Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 8, 22 (Spring 2009) 118
Király V. István The Foundation of Philosophy and Atheism in Heidegger’s Early Works

Philosophy is consequently exactly that mode of existence of the being

named yet in these texts “man” – human Dasein (menschliches Dasein) – in
and through which he problematizes his being precisely with regard to the
unsurpassable problem and problematicity of the fact that he himself is
and that – thus – he must and has to be. Therefore as being something-
someone for whom the being and beingness is a problem, an undertaking, a
task, a risk and a possibility dwelling exactly in his existence. Shortly:
philosophy is one of man’s not only essential but also exclusive possibilities
and needs. Omniscient beings – among other things – do not philosophize,
as do not philosophize the beings which – without existing – only “are”…
On the contrary, the constitutive and insurmountable stupidity of “all-
knowing” (omniscience) consists exactly in the fact that, if such a thing
“could know everything”…, he could never know that he “knows” at all.
Because to know one must exactly be aware of his ignorance, an experience
acquired solely in the quest for truth and in its hardships. In a single word
the awareness of ignorance we call of course: question, respectively inquiry.
And such things as question and inquiry are not given to the “omniscient”
at all and on principle. Since he (already) necessarily knows “ab ovo”
always everything… Otherwise he could not be called “omniscient”. It is
the same with the “immortal” too: this “does not die”, but “meanwhile”
neither does he live a single moment at all. This therefore can also dispel
the delusion that the immortals – the immortal gods – could somehow
recognize, become aware of/get to know their (own) immortality precisely
by means of human mortality. 4 For if these gods, besides their immortality,
are also omniscient, they could not recognize these “characteristics” – in
spite of any comparison –, unless their own immortality became a
question, or/respectively questionable for them. That is, if they are not
really omniscient. But, of course, it would still remain incomprehensible
where from and how could originate-arise any kind of questions in this
immortal.
Consequently, it is clear from the beginning, that what we call here
“the foundation” of philosophy and philosophy as “foundation”, are not
and cannot be in any case some “epistemology” or some “logic” of
philosophy, and in the least a purely preparatory propedeutics or some
“meta-theory” of it, but only the effectiveness of interrogation, the quest – andt
also of the articulation – regarding its essence, senses, the effectiveness of its
“weight” and “pressure”. Because of this in these texts Heidegger calls this
effectiveness exactly “facticity” or “factual life”.
Far therefore from being pure “theory”, philosophy is – as man’s
mode of being – a mode of being of factual life. More precisely, philosophy is
exactly that mode of being of factual life, in and through which factual life
itself returns towards itself – problematizing, opening, surpassing and
transcending itself permanently. And more exactly: through which factual
life is made – by means of assumption and effort – to return explicitly and
disclosingly towards itself.

Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 8, 22 (Spring 2009) 119
Király V. István The Foundation of Philosophy and Atheism in Heidegger’s Early Works

Or, this turn and return take place, naturally and each time, in a
“living present” (lebendige Gegenwart), from which – starting therefore from
its problematic – they are historical, that is situated. Because of this, the first
act of foundation must be to bring to surface and make this same situating
function effectively. Therefore: hermeneutics. For this reason the text we
are speaking about here has the subtitle: Indications of the Hermeneutical
Situation (Anzeige der hermeneutischen Situation). Since: “in accordance with
its beingness (Seinskarakter), the philosophical research itself is something
that no ‘era’ (“Zeit”) … can borrow from another; philosophical research is
at the same time also something that – if it has understood itself and if it
has understood its sense and the capacities of its performances which
reside in the human Dasein – can never have the pretence of taking over
from the next generations the weight and pressure of the care
(Bekümmerung) of radical interrogation. This weight cannot be and must
not be taken over.” 5 With the specification that the term “radical” is used
here consequently in its basic sense, that of: going to the roots.
It is therefore clear that the philosophical research is identified here
as something like assumption, namely the assumption on each actual and
factual occasion – consequently being in actu – of the weight and pressure
of the care of radical interrogation. Philosophy is therefore something
which is never only “continued” or “ended”, but it is rather reborn – it is
therefore brought to a new and repeated rebirth – in each age through and in
function of the assumption of some existential challenges, original, present
and historical alike – namely assuming the pressure of the burden of
radical interrogation –, which aim in a particular way and in act at each
age and each actual generation apart.
And the beingness of philosophy is organized exactly in the fact that it
is itself a mode of being of the human Dasein, a mode of being of the situated
human presence. Namely, philosophy is precisely that mode of being of
man which has as its object – necessarily and first of all – exactly this being
as a being and the facticity of his life (faktisches Leben). Object examined-
investigated and problematized by the philosophy thus understood and
outlined even with respect to its character of being and existence.
Philosophy is not therefore placed or introduced from the outside – or
in any other artificial way – into the being, and because of this neither does
the being and the problem of being “enter” from the outside and
artificially into philosophy, but rather and only through the existence of
man. That is, through the existence of the one who philosophizes. As
Heidegger himself said “…the philosophical research itself gives and
constitutes (ausmacht) a determined ‘how’ of factual life, and, as such, it
already con-temporarizes (mitzeitigt) this and itself also with the each time
concrete being of life – therefore not as some ulterior application…”. 6
Before proceeding, we must however point out and specify the
circumstance that in the term “facticity” and “factual” life – though it
evidently derives from the Latin factum – Heidegger takes into account,

Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 8, 22 (Spring 2009) 120
Király V. István The Foundation of Philosophy and Atheism in Heidegger’s Early Works

however, on the one hand its older significations, and, on the other those
preserved and lived mostly in Vulgar Latin. But, in these senses and
significations factum does not mean something “given” or “deeds” (in a, let
us say, positivistic sense), but exactly the deed seen in the effectiveness of
its realization, namely as real act. What is therefore essential in “facticity”
is precisely the dynamism of the act, which is brought to the outlining of its
effectiveness exactly in its actuality. Thus – according also to an observation
of Gadamer – Heidegger conceived and used the term “facticity” exactly as
a “counter-concept” (Gegenbegriff), namely as something which is right
counter- that which in German idealism was named “consciousness”, “self-
consciousness” or in Husserl’s works, “the transcendental ego”. 7
Only that factual life is focalized and articulated first of all by care and
taking care. And exactly in this dynamism of careful human preoccupations
the world is constituted both as a surrounding world, the world common
with the others and as one’s own world.
Due to care and taking care life is and feels heavy. Consequently, life
too always factualy strives, on the one hand, to get absorbed in the
directions and the objects of its cares, and on the other hand and at the
same time, to lighten the oppressive weight of its cares. And these,
together, constitute that which Heidegger called the declining tendency of
factual life. We should like to specify that “decline” here has of course a
strictly ontological sense, and as such it is only the tendency of life to shun
itself – lighten itself. It is not a decline compared to some “golden ages” or
to some former paradisiacal states and the decline is not something that
happens only occasionally or which would be characteristic only to a
certain age. On the contrary: the decline originates from the constitutive
character, for man’s factual life, of the fact that it is structured by care. The
care man takes first of all of the being-object and which, at the same time,
urges man always towards the lightening of its pressure. Decline is
therefore an ontological, intentional-factual “how” of life. 8
As it is in fact philosophy too. Defined in this way, the essence and
factual task of philosophy can only be to constitute itself in an – also factual
– counter-tendency against the tendency of decline equally factual,
characteristic to factual life. If therefore factual life tends to lighten…, then
– seriously speaking – the factual-effective task of philosophy cannot be to
elaborate some programmes which would lead to ideal and utopian states, 9
but, first of all, it is to give weight to the already lightened “things”. That is,
to show, to draws attention to their weight and complexity.
If, however, the declining tendency consists really of shunning and
lightening one’s own factual everyday life, then this tendency of shunning
and lightening can be identified first of all exactly in its usual attitude and
relationship towards death. For death is something that, on the one hand, is
a threat to life as such, but, at the same time, it is, on the other hand, also a
how of life. Death is not “beyond” life, for human life is permanently, each
time and factually finite, namely mortal. At the same time, nothing

Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 8, 22 (Spring 2009) 121
Király V. István The Foundation of Philosophy and Atheism in Heidegger’s Early Works

“burdens” life more, than the weight and pressure of death. Therefore,
nothing urges more to lighten its pressure, than death.
Related to and against this tendency the responsible philosophical
research must consequently unfold. It has therefore to ensure the human
Dasein its death as being a certitude which is just before it, that is, before us.
Therefore, without some metaphysics of immortality and without the
metaphysics of what would be “after death”. For all these are in fact only
attempts to lighten the weight of death’s pressure and, as such, they are
omissions with respect to the task and “object” of philosophy which are, as
we have seen, the human Dasein and his factual life. 10
By this, namely the effective – and not “only theoretical” or only
“mental” – existential ensuring of death as certitude, therefore, as a
certain and foreseen future for every living man and generation, death
ensures however – and in fact – exactly view and visibility both for the
present and the past of life. In fact and essentially, it organizes and
constitutes therefore the temporality of factual life, temporality as such.
Being exactly the “mortal” quality, namely the quality to be con-temporary
with death and, thus, with the “holding” and “possession” of death.
And historicity, more precisely the basic sense of historicity – namely:
historicality – as such, can be determined only starting from this
temporality. History as history and the historicality of the human Dasein –
living, (as at his time, the Dasein of the already dead, but also of the yet
unborn) – originates therefore from his/their finitude, consequently from
his/their character of being mortal. History as history and historicality
originate therefore in fact from death. That is, from the future, neither
from the past, nor from the present. The certain future of the living human
Dasein’s death is therefore that, which gives in fact weight to his life and
which consequently gives weight both to the past and present of the
Dasein. It gives therefore weight to the factual life of the human Dasein as
such. The immortals consequently can neither have history, since,
properly, neither can have history the beings which – though “they are in
time” – do not exist, only are.
Nevertheless, – if we really try to penetrate it with our thoughts – we
can also realize the fact that the “term”, which, who knows why, always
occurs when “death” is discussed… namely the term “death-lessness”,
refers necessarily to something, which – in conformity with “its definition”
contained implicitly in its formulation – is in fact intangible – that is un-
touchable – precisely as regards the aliveness of his life. Surely, it is not
therefore useless to attempt a mental exercise and to try to penetrate the
“depths” of this “term”. Because only he, who has lived, can be “dead”. In
this sense the dead one’s lack of life, the lack of life of death belongs in fact
to its connection with and to life, as being exactly its loss. Similarly, only he,
who has lived, and he, who, consequently lives ceaselessly and eternally,
can be “undying”. For this is what we, mortals call… “deathless”, and we
call it thus exactly because we think of it as something – which being alive

Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 8, 22 (Spring 2009) 122
Király V. István The Foundation of Philosophy and Atheism in Heidegger’s Early Works

– is devoid of death, and, as such, is without death… Such a thing would be

thus something whose living being – that is, whose life – is unconditioned
and intangible. On the one hand, it depends on nothing, and on the other
hand, it can be touched by nothing. The immortals’ living being has
therefore no connection and no contact with either nothing and –
consequently – with the Nothing.
For this reason, all that is immortal is necessarily and ceaselessly in a
way in which the How of his eternally living being can be, in general and to
himself, only totally and ceaselessly indifferent. Consequently, though he
can be whenever he wishes “sometimes” “so” and “sometimes” “different”,
all these can only be for him eventualities without any weight or pressure.
Weight and pressure which would really have repercussion on his ever
living being, for his (ever living) life does not depend on and is not – and
cannot be – touched by them in any way or form. In other words, for
something that would really be immortal, no such touch-eventuality can
have – itself – character of being. The immortal’s ceaseless aliveness can be
therefore neither endangered, nor touched by anything and, because of
this, not even he himself can endanger his aliveness. Consequently, for he
himself can only be indifferent How he is… that is, How he is of whom we,
mortals think – imagining – that we refer to with the term “immortal” and
“immortality”.
Taking therefore more seriously the task of thinking: one can think
with the terms “immortal” and “immortality” of no (other) quality, as
being his constant quality, therefore as being an actual quality in an equally
ceaseless way. On the contrary: one can associate with the immortal and
immortality ceaselessly and eternally any kind of “qualities” and at any
time. Therefore, only in the eventual way and only devoid of any reflexive
“ontological” and existential weight. Consequently: any striving, for
example, for “good” or for “justice” etc. of anything which would be really
immortal – and all the more some ontological and qualitative constant of
such an aspiration – can be only something devoid of sense and meaning.
That is, in Aristotelian terminology: a kind of “goat-stag”.
In any case, something like this is always and totally situated hither of
any “good” and “evil”, any “just” and “unjust”… In this way, in fact, he cannot
even “reach” them, therefore, he cannot even attain to be at least in contact with
them. 11 Consequently, something like this can in no way and never go “beyond
good and evil”. That is: far from being able to “establish” the ethics and legal
systems of justice etc., it cannot even “criticize” them. Therefore, domains,
problems and efforts such as ethics, deontology, jurisprudence etc. as well
have a role, a sense and weight only for those beings for whom, due to
their existence, the How of this being and the How of this existence must
always and really have weight, sense and signification. In other words, who
are mortal and who die.
Death, dying is therefore something which – though in most of the
cases not a theme – starting however from the core of existence, is the

Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 8, 22 (Spring 2009) 123
Király V. István The Foundation of Philosophy and Atheism in Heidegger’s Early Works

source of and articulates in fact – and exactly with respect to their weight
and ontological and historical senses – any ethics, any deontology, any
legal system, any scientific or… philosophical theory. Domains for which
therefore it is not at all useless to realize this, mainly when they judge
from above exactly death, therefore in fact exactly their source, origin and
precisely their foundation.
The historicality of history is, however, structured and outlined both
by the declining tendency and the existential efforts to counteract this.
And these efforts are – in their turn – as factual as the decline. Their
possibility therefore also resides in the factual possibilities of the human
Dasein. But, Heidegger names here the ensemble of these possibilities of
authenticity: existence. Which cannot be outlined and distinguished
because of this unless through and as the consequence of the factual
destruction of the declining states which are however always the dominant
states of facticity.
Consequently, with respect to these dominant states “negation has
primacy over affirmation”. 12 Negation, however, means exactly to open
facticity to the possibilities of (its) existence, namely the possibilities of
authenticity in the given, concrete hermeneutical-historical situating, this
being the critique of the present and – by this – the critique of tradition
and of history. For this reason philosophy can never be something
“popular”. Therefore it can never enjoy “popularity”, for it usually asserts
itself against popular, common and liked things and “places”. Philosophy is
however constrained to act destructively not only against these popular
dominances, but also against its own traditions, which too get in the
present to the way of decline. Because of this the foundation of philosophy
and philosophizing as foundation means each time the destructive, decided
and negating feature too of this tradition.
To “make philosophy”, to philosophize is only possible on the basis
and after a decision. Only through this decision can in fact the object of
philosophy be obtained and assimilated, the object that concerns existence
evidently and fundamentally. Existence stands, therefore, now – defied and
defiant – both before its own traditions and possibilities. Or, from the point
of view of tradition, the philosophy of the present situation moves – in
general – on the one hand in Greek conceptuality (which itself has gone
through the most varied interpretations in the course of time), and, on the
other hand, in Christian idealness. 13 They therefore determine together –
from the perspective of the problem of facticity – also the current
dominant interpretation of life (Lebensauslegung).
Only this tradition and interpretation are essentially devoid exactly of
the certitude of death. That is, exactly the quality of death as death, as dying
and as such the quality of death as certitude. In complete accord with and
even by virtue of these directions and tendencies – however paradoxically
and dismayingly, perhaps – almost all the occidental traditions – the
metaphysical tradition, the religious tradition, the tradition of common

Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 8, 22 (Spring 2009) 124
Király V. István The Foundation of Philosophy and Atheism in Heidegger’s Early Works

beliefs and opinions etc. – in their dominant aspects have been operating
in fact for thousands of years with a “concept” of death which does not
refer to dying as such, but, on the contrary it hides – or at least evades – it.
Beginning with Plato – his texts from Phaidon and Criton – and continued by
Epicurus… not to mention the Christian tradition… but also the tradition of
those who criticized Christianity – thinkers of the size of Schopenhauer or
Nietzsche – and up to E. Lévinas or J. Derrida… the western metaphysical
tradition – with the maybe sole exception of Martin Heidegger – thinks of
death constantly without dying… That is, on the one hand even as
immortality and deathlessness, or, on the other hand, evading constantly
the express-explicit thought of dying.
It is therefore all the more necessary the decision on the basis of
which philosophy can really become a force capable of radical
effectiveness in the movements against the tendencies of decline. Briefly:
capable of emancipation related to this tradition and capable to become at
the same time “able” to liberate and open the human Dasein towards the
possibilities of authenticity of (its) existence.
In other words – as Heidegger textually declared – it is necessary that
this philosophy should become and should be decidedly and fundamentally
atheist (grundsätzlich atheistich ist). 14 Namely: to become a philosophy, which
has decided to gain and to assume its object and senses not determined by
ideological exigencies and “visions about the world”, neither continuing
mechanically its own traditions, but starting from its own con-
temporarized factual possibilities.
Therefore the fundamental and necessary atheism of philosophy did
not mean for the young Heidegger an ideological inclusion in some other
movement or trend (e.g. “materialism”), but we encounter here a
completely constitutive element. (And which, for this reason, is much
more radical than any “usual” movement, tendency of “denying God”.)
Instead this is the founding affirmation of the fact that, in general, any
philosophy which understands itself seriously and honestly, with this
understanding has also to understand the circumstance that philosophy as
such and philosophizing in general is and means already implicitly some
kind of “raising one’s hand against God” (Handaufhebung gegen Gott ist) as
well. 15 Only thus can philosophy ensure its critical autonomy, which is
necessary to existential criticism through which on the one hand tradition
is destroyed, and, on the other hand existence is opened. And only thus can
philosophy avoid becoming – by yielding to the allure of ease – a simple
and already usual “metaphysical calmative”, through which man takes
refuge in a “soothing” world (beruhigende Welt). 16
And to really avoid these traditional and already much too usual
pitfalls and allures, philosophy must unfold, construct and reconstruct
itself only on the basis of its real, factual-effective and radical sources and
possibilities. And in this existential reconstruction, the human Dasein –

Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 8, 22 (Spring 2009) 125
Király V. István The Foundation of Philosophy and Atheism in Heidegger’s Early Works

which therefore philosophizes – can only rely on the facticity of its own
radical interrogations… and not at all on some God.
It is therefore clear that “atheism” – term used here in its basic and
constitutive sense, namely a-theos, meaning “without God”, and not the
“rough” denial of God – is essentially and fundamentally connected to the
issue we are discussing, namely the foundation of philosophy. For by
atheism philosophy does not simply “gain” some “autonomy” – let us say
from the church or religion – wished for or only dreamt at occasionally,
but in fact it is founded. That is, through its atheism, philosophy acquires, as
against the dominant tradition, not only his own object, but essentially it
obtains itself as decision, as opening and as radical questioning and
investigating happening.
For this reason Heidegger asked himself here, whether: “Is not even
the idea of some philosophy of religion, moreover if its considerations are
realized without taking into consideration man’s facticity, a pure
nonsense?” (Ob nicht schon die Idee einer Religionsphilosophie, und gar wenn sie
ihre Rechnung ohne die Faktizität des Menschen macht, ei purer Widersinn ist?) 17
But why would even the “idea” of a philosophy of religion be a “pure
nonsense”? Of course, first of all because if “religion” would be let us say
the “object” of such a philosophy, then with this a philosophy outlines in
this way would miss from the beginning its true, fundamental and
founding “object”. Namely, the comprehensive facticity of the human
Dasein. Secondly, if – as it is usual as a rule – by “philosophy of religion” it
is understood or meant in fact some kind of “religious philosophy”, then
through this so-called “philosophy”, philosophy misses in fact exactly its
tasks and senses. For – by virtue of its bases – the sense and task of
philosophy is and can be only to outline, take care of and ask the radical
questions. Which – moreover – it is realized exactly in order to “burden
things” and exactly through the exercising of the primacy of negation. And
any “religious philosophy” – through its name itself – only narrows the
openness of questioning, since it either “knows” already from the
beginning the believed and “religious” answers to his “questions”, or,
together with this, it refrains – if it does not forbid – from the start from
asking some (let us say a-theistic) types and direction of questions.
Philosophy is founded and identifies itself therefore as being in itself a
factual mode of existence of the human Dasein, which, “originating”
exactly from his factual life… also returns to the facticity and “vitality” of
this life. For this reason and consequently, philosophy lays in fact its own
foundations. Thus Kant’s words, according to which philosophy alone can –
and even must – lay its own foundations, prove to be true and acquire a
new contour and a new weight. And this is never a purely theoretical-
epistemic happening, since – as we have seen – self-foundation of
philosophy takes place only starting from and in its being-like and factual
affiliation – as a mode of being – to factual life itself. As being therefore
itself a relationship of being, in which the being itself “grows” and is

Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 8, 22 (Spring 2009) 126
Király V. István The Foundation of Philosophy and Atheism in Heidegger’s Early Works

enriched, turning towards itself in the form and in the mode of radical
interrogation which must be assumed, performed and effectuated each
time in an actual, existential-historic and factual way.

Anyhow: this early Heideggerian text outlines the foundation of

philosophy exactly by placing it into the soil of its equally factual,
historical and existential origins and senses. Placing it therefore exactly
into freedom and exactly into what Kant named in his time “the autonomy
and interests proper to philosophy”. Consequently, the foundation of
philosophy also meant for Heidegger – already in 1922 – implicitly its
opening towards the meditation on the essence of the foundation and
through this towards the ceaseless re-interrogation of the world, of the
transcendence and of freedom.
Or all these would become – in the year 1929 – the express themes of
the study On the Essence of the Ground, in which therefore “the ground” and
“foundation” were already interrogated expressly and – of course –
radically.

(Translated by Ágnes Korondi)

Bibliography

Dastur, Françoise. Moartea – Eseu despre finitudine. Bucureşti: Humanitas, 2006.

Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Heidegger şi grecii. Cluj: Apostrof, 1999.

Heidegger, Martin. “Phänomenologische Interpretationen zu Aristoteles

(Anzeige der hermeneutischen Situation) – Fenomenológiai Aristotelés-
Interpretációk (A hermeneutikai szituáció jelzésére)” [Hungarian-German
bilingual edition], In Existentia, Volume VI-VII. Fasc. 1-4. 1996–97.

Heidegger, Martin Das Ding und Die Sprache – A dolog és A nyelv (Hungarian-
German bilingual edition), Sárvár: Sylvester János Könyvtár, 2000.

Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 8, 22 (Spring 2009) 127
 Király V. István The Foundation of Philosophy and Atheism in Heidegger’s Early Works

Notes

1
“The mortals are the men. They are called mortals, since they can die. To die
means to make possible death as death. Rational beings must first become mortals.”
Martin Heidegger, “Das Ding,” in Martin Heidegger, Das Ding und Die Sprache – A
dolog és A nyelv (Hungarian-German bilingual edition, Sárvár: Sylvester János
Könyvtár, 2000, 41. (Italics are mine, I.K.V.)
2
Martin Heidegger, “Phänomenologische Interpretationen zu Aristoteles (Anzeige
der hermeneutischen Situation) – Fenomenológiai Aristotelés-Interpretációk (A
hermeneutikai szituáció jelzésére)” [Hungarian-German bilingual edition],
Existentia, 1996–97.
3
Interestingly – maybe even oddly – the copy of the text has been preserved and
found in Göttingen (where Heidegger’s presentation was refused), but the scholars
studying Heidegger’s wok “knew” about its existence from a letter in which the
young philosopher “informed” Paul Natorp about the evolution of his
investigations regarding Aristotle. The text Phenomenological Interpretations of
Aristotle was published for the first time only in 1989 in the Dilthey-Jahrbuch für
Philosophie und Geschichte der Geisteswissenschaften, Band 6/1989, with a preface by
Hans-Georg Gadamer entitled – not too adequately in our opinion – Heideggers
„theologische” Jugendschrift. Since then – as in the edition used by us – this title has
figured as a kind of “subtitle” of the text. However, Gadamer’s quite evident
intention, when giving this title to his preface, must have been to “facilitate” the
approach of a larger public often ruled by theological and religious prejudices and
even aversion towards Martin Heidegger’s thinking.
4
Françoise Dastur, Moartea – Eseu despre finitudine (Death – Essays on Finitude),
(Bucharest: Humanitas, 2006), 19.
5
Heidegger, 6.
6
Heidegger, 8.
7
Hans-Georg Gadamer, Heidegger şi grecii (Heidegger and the Greeks), (Cluj:
Apostrof, 1999), 10.
8
Heidegger, 12.
9
Heidegger, 12.
10
“Die hier bezeichnete rein konstitutiv ontologische Problematik des
Seinscharakters des Todes hat nichts zu tun mit einer Mataphysik der
Unsterblichkeit und des >>Wasdann?<<.” Heidegger, 18.
11
Nietzsche’s critic of Kant takes of course all these aspects fully in consideration.
12
Heidegger, 18.
13
Heidegger, 22.
14
Heidegger, 18.
15
Heidegger, 18.
16
Heidegger, 18.
17
Heidegger, 18.

Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 8, 22 (Spring 2009) 128

View publication stats