Heidegger: antes do agir, é preciso aprender a pensar

"It is toward the great essence of man that we are thinking, inasmuch as man’s essence belongs to the essence of Being and is needed by Being to keep safe the coming to presence of Being into its truth.
Therefore, what is necessary above all is this: that beforehand we ponder the essence of Being as that which is worthy of thinking; that beforehand, in thinking this, we experience to what extent we are called upon first to trace a path for such experiencing and to prepare that path as a way into that which till now has been impassable.
All this we can do only it before considering the question that is seemingly always the most immediate one and the only urgent one, What shall we do? we ponder this: How must we think? For thinking is genuine activity, genuine taking a hand, if to take a hand means to lend a hand to the essence, the coming to presence, of Being. This means: to prepare (build) for the coming to presence of Being that abode in the midst of whatever is [inmitten des Seienden] into which Being brings itself and its essence to utterance in language. Language first gives to every purposeful deliberation its ways and its byways. Without language, there would be lacking to every doing every dimension in which it could bestir itself and be effective. In view of this, language is never primarily the expression of thinking, feeling, and willing. Language is the primal dimension within which man’s essence is first able to correspond at all to Being and its claim, and, in corresponding, to belong to Being. This primal corresponding, expressly carried out, is thinking. Through thinking, we first learn to dwell in the realm in which there comes to pass the restorative surmounting of the destining of Being, the surmounting of Enframing."
Heidegger, (GA7), Trad. William Lovitt, 1977, p. 40-41

Safranski: o duplo esquecimento do ser

"A obra [Ser e Tempo], de muita eficácia na sua dramaturgia, começa com uma espécie de prólogo no céu. Aparece Platão. Cita-se um trecho do diálogo Sofistas: "Pois obviamente há muito estais familiarizados com o que na verdade eu quis dizer usando a expressão ente (seiend): nós pensávamos um dia tê-la compreendido, agora porém estamos embaraçados".
Esse embaraço, diz Heidegger, ainda existe, mas não o admitimos a nós mesmos. Ainda não sabemos o que pensamos ao dizer que algo é ente. O prólogo queixa-se contra um duplo esquecimento do ser. Esquecemos o que é ser e também esquecemos esse esquecer. E assim trata-se de renovar a indagação pelo sentido do ser; mas como esquecemos o esquecer, trata-se sobretudo de despertar de novo a compreensão para o sentido dessa pergunta.
Como convém a um prólogo, já no início alude-se ao ponto para onde tudo isso converge: a interpretação do tempo como o horizonte possível de qualquer compreensão do ser. O sentido do ser é tempo. Está revelado o tema, mas para torná-lo compreensível Heidegger não precisará apenas de todo esse livro, e sim do resto de sua vida.
A questão do ser. Na verdade Heidegger propõe duas perguntas. Uma é: o que entendemos de verdade quando utilizamos a palavra ente? Pergunta-se pelo sentido da expressão. Nessa pergunta Heidegger liga outra bem diferente, pelo sentido do próprio ser. Heidegger afirma, quanto à pergunta em seu duplo sentido, que não existe nem mesmo uma compreensão do sentido da pergunta. Estranha afirmação.

Heidegger: uma investigação sobre o sentido do ser

"What does Heidegger mean by "being"? The single most important point to grasp at the outset is that being is not itself something that exists: it is neither one entity among others, nor the totality of entities (das Seiende), nor a property of entities. The difference between being and entities is what Heidegger, soon after writing Being and Time, calls the "ontological difference" (GA24: 22). Since his question concerns being, and since being is not an entity, Heidegger is not primarily interested in the central question of traditional ontology: what is there? Are there forms and universals or only particulars? Does God exist? Is there such a thing as substance or are there only properties? Is the mind physical? Do we have free will? Are we and everything else ultimately will to power? These are metaphysical questions; they are questions about entities, not about being. They are, in Heidegger’s jargon, "ontic" as opposed to "ontological." Moreover, by fixing our attention exclusively on entities, Heidegger believes, such questions tend to eclipse and obscure the question of being. The difference is not just one of generality, for Heidegger also distinguishes the question of being from what he later calls "the fundamental question of metaphysics," namely, why is there something rather than nothing? (GA40: ch. 1) The question of being is not about what there is or even why there is anything, but rather what it is for what there is - whatever it is, and for whatever reason there is any of it - to be.
What then is "being"? The closest Heidegger comes to a definition is to say that being is that in virtue of which entities are entities; it is what makes (in a noncausal sense of "makes") entities entities. This [85] should not mislead us into supposing that being is a property of entities. Aristotle and the medieval scholastics knew that "being" does not name a peculiar feature of a kind of entity, or even entities as a whole, since a contrast class is by definition out of the question. What would "entities" lacking being be? They would not be entities at all. As Kant observed in his refutation of the ontological argument for the existence of God, being may be a "logical" (and linguistic) predicate, but it is not a "real predicate" or property. [1] On the surface, the sentence "Dogs exist" looks grammatically the same as "Dogs bark," but the surface grammar is misleading. We know what non-barking dogs are, but what are nonexistent dogs? What would entities be without the putative property of existence? Nothing. And what could actually have such a property? Only entities. Yet the entity-ness of entities is just what possession of the property was supposed to explain.