First Prelude: This little effort is the first segment of the essay “Martin Heidegger and the ‘Destruktion’ of philosophy”. The structure of this segment has organized it based on Heidegger’s provocative contribution to the philosophical investigation of ‘Being’. Here the first segment tried to follow his ‘excellence’, once he persuaded it in western philosophy with morale guts and valiance. Heidegger is ‘essential’ for his iconic cognizance and to the contrary for his iconoclastic steps to break down philosophy’s moral. Reminder, this iconoclast once trampled down the entire mode and handy process of German Idealism with robust insight. We should consider the significance because it insists us to think about philosophy by crossing the ultimate borderline of it, which limits thinking to go further.

He is rebellious and we mean it not just an ‘academic’ sense, his insightful wordings just overrun the process of structural thinking which we treat inevitable for us; he influenced our thoughts when we care ‘beingness of this apparent world’ a problem for human cognizance, and tried to sum it up through series questions. Heidegger is essential who are covetous deals the world with robust insightfulness and unconventional probity. On the opposite, he is an uncomfortable wisdomness and a perplexing self-contradictory person who dislike his approaches when he beacons like this: —O man, raised your question first about the question before going to the next question.

… Heidegger might be the dare mentor who trained us how to read our own ‘self’ without philosophizing it anymore. More we philosophize anything (in any light of discussion) the more we trapped ourselves in the nominative meaning. Philosophy is not a nominative ‘meaning’, rather it could be non-nominative, an action which leads us to embrace the real ‘being’.

… … …

He is a total ‘discomfort’ who yet consider his connection with Nazism, who consider his self-contradictory fidelity ‘the pollution’ of progressive thinking; because he justified the emergence of German National Socialism according to his ‘originary’ beingness principle. He seemed prickly for who treated him a provocateur and advocator of false metaphysics. Structural positivism that deals ‘meta’ questions based on the scientific or religious methods, Heidegger’s rebellion against this phenomenal approaches might oblige him to talk with a controversial tone in many extents. Anyway, this man is such a ‘soul’ who doesn’t care what other people said about him. He ignored all this ‘essential norms and morals’ which philosophy of thinking always consider ‘essential’ with care and affection. His student Hannah Arendt correctly notified to say:

“In the German universities at the time, after the First World War, there was no rebellion but widespread discontent with the academic enterprise of teaching and learning in those faculties that were more than professional schools, a disquiet that prevailed among students for whom study meant more than preparing for making a living. Philosophy was no breadwinner’s study, but rather the study of resolute starvelings who were, for that very reason, all the harder to please. They were in no way disposed toward a wisdom of life or of the world, and for anyone concerned with the solution of all riddles there was available a rich selection of worldviews and their partisans; it wasn’t necessary to study philosophy in order to choose among them.” [See: Martin Heidegger at Eighty, Hannah Arendt, Translated by Albert Hofstadter]

Arendt was very correct in the memoir where she identified the seed of rebellion that made Husserl‘s disciple rebellious to think, —everything has taught in philosophy with care, even the academia taught Kantian ‘thing-in-itself’ and Husserl’s ‘to the things themselves’ phenomenology with care, but what is missing in all extents that are ‘knowledge’.

This approach motivated him to ‘rebegin’ everything that we called ‘knowledge’, called ‘philosophy’, and indeed adored it by calling ‘scientific progress’ of a nation. He just denied all phrasing because they’ve already confined the ‘originary’ that is ‘being’; and they confined the ‘essence’ of ‘beings’ as well. Knowledge is insight, not just a word game of terminology. That was his masterful contribution in western academia; it might controversial but inevitable for rethinking and reconsidering ‘knowledge’ with new recognition.

… Philosophy is elegant and ‘seminary’ —Heidegger’s stance on it just ‘thrown’ us to the reverse. As ‘beings’ ‘is’ is not the cause of ‘being’, instead, ‘being’ itself the cause of its ‘is’. Like as ‘philosophy’s ‘is’ not the ‘is’ what we think makes philosophy vibrant.

… … …

However, this essay tried to advance follows his rebellious footsteps, tried to face his thinking of ‘Da-sein‘, and tried to follow his terminal wording suppose ‘being, beings, beingness, beginning, rebeginning or re-beginning of the beginning etc.’ which he invented to justify the ‘originary’ of ‘being and beings in a Da-sein State’. Means each segment of this essay will try to pick all of ‘essentials’ which appeared inevitable if anybody follows Heidegger’s work with passion and enthusiastic respect. The first segment of this essay move forward in three following steps:

I. ‘First Prelude‘; readers can treat this section an introductory addition before going to the middle.

II. ‘Destruktion‘; the middle section where this essay tried to get an entrance on what philosophy means to the end; what meaning could plausible for it when it deals the ‘being and beings of the being’ by going out the trendy and traditional thought-doctrines. Reminder, this portion of the essay gardening itself through some ‘propositional’ wordings and not follows or always resonates Heidegger; instead, it tried to stroke his basic ideas but at end of the day it stands on its own individuality and independence.

III. ‘End Notes of First Prelude‘; this section added some further talking about Heidegger’s contribution in philosophy where he proclaimed the ‘rebeginning of the beginning’ of philosophy once again; if it wants to survive.

The upcoming segments of the essay will continue the above-mentioned structure with relevant subjectivity. Heidegger is enormously complicated in his powerful wordings; a very robust and whimsical personality and very tricky to the tricks which he liked to always mention: ‘Being is beyond intuition‘, but ‘that’ the only ‘essence’ where philosophy can stay with comfort. His ‘nothingness’ thus appeared with ‘thereness’! This insight anew restructured our relationship with the reality and so on.

True, Heidegger is a tough Guy if we try to walk with him by carrying ‘modern scientific recognition’ about ‘thereness‘ in our mind. However, he is ‘essential’ in both contextual of science and metaphysics, whatever the modern ontology and academia think about him, ‘this man’ himself an ‘essential’ reading for the inquisitive.

I welcome readers to consider all ‘this Heidegger’s ‘Gestellation’ with pleasure, and equally if any mistake which might happen due to my misreading of his thought, if it happened anywhere of the segment, then please notify me. I’ll rectify it by this moment.

… … …

… Heidegger is essential who are covetous deals the world with robust insightfulness and unconventional probity. On the opposite, he is an uncomfortable wisdomness and a perplexing self-contradictory person who dislike his approaches when he beacons like this: —O man, raised your question first about the question before going to the next question.

… … …

Destruktion of philosophy:

Destruktion 1: Philosophy exists when ‘no philosophy‘ has remained which can exist.

Destruktion 2: The destruction of philosophy is the destruction of ‘being’ and the philosophy itself. Opposite, the ‘Destruktion’ of philosophy means a rebeginning of the ‘being’ and the philosophy as well.

Destruktion 3: Philosophy discusses everything except itself. Every organ of ‘being’ has dissected except the ‘being’ itself. The beginning has also investigated with care; but what is missing that is, —the ‘rebeginning of the beginning’ of ‘being‘.

Destruktion 4: Philosophy has forgotten since many years when it lost its solitude, and that is ‘essence‘.

Destruktion 5: Philosophy is missing because ‘being’ is missing. No ‘insightful mind’ never noticed this that the center point of all philosophy that is ‘being’, is missing.

Destruktion 6: ‘Being’ is the ultimate providence of philosophy, whereas ‘essence’ is the lone reality for it where ‘being’ happened.

Destruktion 7: Rebeginning of the beginning means ‘beings of being‘ and it means philosophy as well.

Destruktion 8: Without ‘being’, there is no departure for philosophy. As well as, without accepting it (mean philosophy) ‘being’ has no identity.

Destruktion 9: Beginning of ‘everything’ is erroneous for both philosophy and the philosophy of ‘being’. Any discussion about this (mean beginning) leads philosophy to a wrong direction. Which is ‘being’ for a philosophy, it cannot begin; alongside, which is the philosophy for a ‘being’ it also cannot begin.

Destruktion 10: There is no beginning for ‘being’ and the philosophy of ‘being’. Which philosophy stumbled on to see, that is ‘beginning of being’, it is in the actual sense a ‘rebeginning’; means the beginning of the beginning.

Destruktion 11: Creationism is a false statement for ‘being’ and as well as the philosophy itself. Which is created or which has a beginning it cannot be named by ‘being’. That make creation it cannot be created by this creation. ‘Being or the essence of being’ is that philosophy which must have a beginningless ‘originary’, which means ‘Da-sein’.

Destruktion 12: ‘Da-sein’ vibrates creation but its own ‘selfness’ is uncreated. ‘Being’s presence in that (means Da-sein State) is actually ‘nothingness’. To the contrary, ‘nothingness’ doesn’t denote the absence. The philosophy of ‘nothingness’ takes a wrong turn by signifying ‘nothingness’ an ’empty fiction’. Nothingness where ‘being and the essence of being’ exists that cannot be an ’empty fiction’.

Thus to say, ‘nothingness’ is actually a ‘thereness’. ‘Being, essence of being, and beings of the being’… all exist in ‘thereness’ for assimilation and rebegin the story of beginning over again.

Destruktion 13: Alongside, ‘essence’ in ‘thereness state’ resonate individual solitudeness of ‘being’. Creation cannot create this solitudeness.

Destruktion 14: The philosophy of ‘being’ lost its ‘originary’, means the genealogy of real ‘being’ in a Da-sein State.

Destruktion 15: Again to say, ‘essence’ is the uncreated belongings in a ‘Da-sein State’ where ‘being’ exits with its individual ‘essence’. It resonate ‘nothingness’, means ‘thereness’.

… … …

… He just denied all phrasing because they’ve already confined the ‘originary’ that is ‘being’; and they confined the ‘essence’ of ‘beings’ as well. Knowledge is insight, not just a word game of terminology. That was his masterful contribution in western academia; it might controversial but inevitable for rethinking and reconsidering ‘knowledge’ with new recognition.

… … …

Destruktion 16: That beginning business is a ‘falsification’ of philosophy. It leads philosophy nowhere. There is only one beginning and that is ‘rebeginning’.

Destruktion 17: Which discuss beginning it is philosophy. Which stay with ‘rebeginning’, that is the philosophy of ‘being’.

Destruktion 18: Beginning business first started by the Greeks and yet continued. Greek philosophy lost the ‘originary’, that is ‘being’.

Destruktion 19: This philosophy (mean Greek) creates division between the apparent reality and its non-apparent ‘essence’. It is erroneous. Philosophy yet abided and chained itself in Plato’s cave. It explained the apparent reality a mimic reflexion of the eternal. No eternal world or reality exists, nor does this apparent reality mimic the eternal. Everything explained there with ‘twoness’; except the ‘self’, means ‘being and its essence’s presence in the self-automated ‘thereness’ state. This cognition is the real metaphysics of philosophy.

Destruktion 20: Which is ‘essence’ of the world, it cannot make a division between real and mimic. The problem has laid down the perception that this apparent world must have a beginning. It misguided Greek ideologists and led them to think about the two-state world, one is eternal and another is temporal. As well, pre-Socratic philosophers (in a sense the materialists) also entangled them by parroting ‘one-state position’; —no world exists except this apparent etc. They explained everything about the ‘process’ of appearance and its fate by forgetting the ‘being and its essence’.

Destruktion 21: Philosophy first misguided by the Greeks and then it confined itself in the religious doctrine. Religion doctrines as well echoed Greek ideologists bit different fashion. The God-doctrine to any extent (Monism or Monotheism) designed its theology based on the same old ‘twoness’. The stayingness of this apparent world depends on God’s will. This world is periodic. God is the only ‘essence’ who created this for a transitional period. Next, He will destroy it and all living beings will be resurrected to embrace the eternal reality where he exists. Everything discussed here in light of God’s ‘will’, except the ‘willingness’ of ‘being’ that it consistently ‘throw’ itself to the ‘beings’, means ‘rebeginning of the beginning’.

Destruktion 22: From the last hundred years, philosophy deceived itself by science. It appointed itself in the beginning business, and it tried to reveal the ‘essence’ of ‘being’ by depends on the false spirit, as science does through unconcealed the ‘natural agent’ (means material objects) and later named it ‘technology’.

The philosophical investigation has now seemed like a scientific process and which is a wrong turn for the science of philosophy. Science started from the verb ‘beings’ instead of ‘being’. The methodology of modern science explores the beingness of ‘being’; it explores the ‘becomingness’ of this apparent world and tried to reach the original ‘being’ through this; it might be logical for science but a flawed step for philosophy.

Philosophy is only for discussing ‘being’, not for ‘beings of being’. If it makes an affair with ‘beings’ for to reach the ‘being’, it diverts philosophy from its own metaphysics. The metaphysics of philosophy is not for a ‘cocky assumption‘, it is for realizing the substance that ‘being’ is not presumable; because which is responsible for ‘beings’ it cannot be presumable by scientific unravelment.

Moral of that Destruktion: Da-sein is unison where ‘being and beings’ equally happening. Science can unravel it but cannot create it.

Destruktion 23: Philosophy needs the ‘essential science’ that leads it to ‘passion’, to ‘question’ the ‘beings’, not the ‘originary’ that is ‘being’. ‘Originary’ cannot be questioned because we do not know how it stayed in ‘Da-sein State’; that means: an always ‘thereness state’ where it stayed to rebegin the beginning of ‘beings’ over again.

Destruktion 24: Science is still ineffectual for which mean Da-sein. This apparent world is an assimilation of Da-sein and it coming from that and this is the only world for us to realize our ‘beingness’ and ‘being’. ‘Being and beings’ equally exist in that state.

Meaning: Each ‘being’ is separate individuals, but when they assimilate each other through their ‘beings’ (that is action), ‘appearance’ happened. Only philosophy can recognize the process. It recognized how ‘being’ exists in a Da-sein State and for what reason.

For the sake of cognizance, philosophy must start from the ‘poetics’ where it belongs; it must separate itself to the science which cannot explain ‘being’ without any causal relation. Which is ‘being’ it cannot be negotiable through causal relation because its ‘originary’ is unknown for science.

“Science still only an acrobatics of methods, a trust in the carrying on of learned pursuits, and the cocky presumption of transmitting and offering.” [See: Martin Heidegger, Black Notebooks, Indiana University Press E-Book]

… … …

… He seemed prickly for who treated him a provocateur and advocator of false metaphysics. Structural positivism that deals ‘meta’ questions based on the scientific or religious methods, Heidegger’s rebellion against this phenomenal approaches might oblige him to talk with a controversial tone in many extents. Anyway, this man is such a ‘soul’ who doesn’t care what other people said about him. He ignored all this ‘essential norms and morals’ which philosophy of thinking always consider ‘essential’ with care and affection.

… … …

Destruktion 25: Today philosophy is ‘oblivion’; it a stupor within the antique wordings; and indeed a trackless toddle in the ‘essenceless’ polemics. Everything is available in the ibidem and which is inaccessible there it is philosophy ‘itself’.

Destruktion 26: “Philosophy is not a theory,” Wittgenstein said in his book. The statement is true when philosophy postponed itself for philosophize anything that might be the cause of ‘being’. It exists when it impedes itself to think itself a ‘philosophy’.

Destruktion 27: He completed his statement for said this: “Philosophy is not a theory but an activity”, it might be erroneous in a sense. Activity is a topical event, has relevant to ‘fact’. A ‘fact’ is relatable to ‘proposition’, and a ‘proposition’ has its own relevancy with ‘symbol’. All these are topical which make the world appears to us. The world is present means it presents in its topical state. It builds a ‘topical activity triangle’ where philosophy can exist in any cones of it. The triangle cannot be a philosophy because it explains ‘activity’; it is science. Philosophy doesn’t explain ‘activity’, because, it itself an ‘activity’.

Destruktion 28: Which is ‘theory’ it cannot be made in sans having the ‘activity’. Wittgenstein’s statement thus reflects philosophy a theory and as well an ‘activity’. Is there an ‘activity’ there be a ‘theory’; reverse, philosophy is a ‘theory’ when there be an ‘activity’.

Destruktion 29: Philosophy is an ‘activity’, —it sounds rational when ‘activity’ is present there to complete the triangle as a whole. Activity is beingness but it might not the ‘being’ itself. An activity could resonate ‘being’ and that is its limit.

Destruktion 30: The activity philosophize ‘beingness’, but it cannot philosophize its own beingness.

Destruktion 31: Philosophy is not for to explain what is ‘being’. It is for to explain how the activity relates itself that make possible ‘being’ for philosophical recognition.

Destruktion 32: The history of philosophy might be the history of ‘beingness’ of the ‘being’. Precisely we can say it is for represents the ‘becomingness’ of the ‘being’. Becoming means a linking verb. It linked ‘being’ with ‘becomingness’.

Destruktion 33: As well as, ‘becoming’ is not ‘originary‘ (the original lineage of being), which philosophy tried to represent as a ‘being’. It (activity) at best explain its conjugation with the ‘is’ where ‘is’ resonates the appearance of ‘being’ to some extent.

What philosophy explains that is how the ‘being’ becomes to a ‘being’ through its conjugation with ‘is’. Becoming of ‘being’ means ‘being’ is becoming now through its conjugal affair with ‘is’.

… … ..

… The destruction of philosophy is the destruction of ‘being’ and the philosophy itself. Opposite, the ‘Destruktion’ of philosophy means a rebeginning of the ‘being’ and the philosophy as well.

… … …

End Notes of First Prelude: Martin Heidegger was might be ‘that lone cellar’ who dealt philosophy by going out the moral norms of it. Heidegger’s appearance denies what we mean by philosophy as a whole. It refuses the ultimate borderline of philosophical discussion. His lingual approach revokes the phenomenal that makes philosophy ‘academic’. Philosophy is elegant and ‘seminary’ —Heidegger’s stance on it just ‘thrown’ us to the reverse. As ‘beings’ ‘is’ is not the cause of ‘being’, instead, ‘being’ itself the cause of its ‘is’. Like as ‘philosophy’s ‘is’ not the ‘is’ what we think makes philosophy vibrant.

Heidegger might be the dare mentor who trained us how to read our own ‘self’ without philosophizing it anymore. More we philosophize anything (in any light of discussion) the more we trapped ourselves in the nominative meaning. Philosophy is not a nominative ‘meaning’, rather it could be non-nominative, an action which leads us to embrace the real ‘being’. Philosophical idioms are the barrier to touch the ground where ‘being’ has ‘thrown’ itself by using its own ‘is’. This Gestellation of ‘being’ as a ‘thing’ is non-ontological. It can be questioned but never be answerable.

… Thus to say, ‘nothingness’ is actually a ‘thereness’. ‘Being, essence of being, and beings of the being’… all exist in ‘thereness’ for assimilation and rebegin the story of beginning over again.

… … …

What is ‘by self’ the cause of its own it cannot be negotiable by the idiomatic phrasing of philosophy and whatsoever. Yes, questions are essential because of that, ‘beings’ always brought ‘question’, but the answer is there might be probable and not ‘ultimate’. The German Ideologists (especially Kant, Nietzsche, and Hegel), they have the courage of raised questions; and equally, they have lost by confining them in idiomatic phrases.

Philosophy is not an answer of ‘being’ (or whatever it is), rather the restless refutation and Destruktion of answers through new questions. That is Heidegger, and that could be the ‘essence’ of ‘what he meant by the philosophy’. If we realize it, philosophy can guide science; otherwise, the death of philosophy is inevitable.

… … …

… Da-sein is unison where ‘being and beings’ equally happening. Science can unravel it but cannot create it…