由「我們是誰？」到「政治」的本源：海德格對存有政治的思考

From “Who we are?” to the Origin of the Political: Heidegger’s Thinking on the Politics of Being

吳維中(Wei-Chung Wu)

指導教授 ： 陳思賢

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/政治學研究所/碩士(2009年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2009.01136

摘要

身為二十世紀最具影響力的哲學家，海德格不僅因為他對「存有問題」所做的努力或為人所景仰，或是啟迪後進者，在不同領域中有所開疆闢土，成果豐碩斐然；同時也因為他在1930年代的一段政治經歷之中有所迷途，爾後雖能識途而返，卻始終拒絕公開承認錯誤因而飽受批評。哲學、政治學與社會學各界對此「海德格事件」之解讀、詮釋與評價，莫不有立場互異的激烈辯論。在對此一背景之前理解下，本文的研究旨趣在於回到海德格的思想本身，並試圖以此思想遺產為出發點，對此事件的本源核心－「政治問題」－有所回應。本此主軸，本文並不關心海德格的政治立場與政治主張，而是試著在他的哲學工作，也就是對存有真理有所長考的道路中，找出海德格得以思考「政治問題」的基礎，並且初步地勾勒出在海氏眼中，該問題之所關切與之所切進的目標與進路。

準此，本論文分為兩大部分。第一部份以三個章節分別回答下列問題：「存有問題」首先是如何進入海德格的視域，而此一問題何以能與提問者之切身存有具有關連？自《存有與時間》到1930年代初期的這段時間中，海德格如何將存有問題以「我們是誰？」表述為政治問題？以第四章為主體的第二部分則代表筆者個人的一種嘗試，即順著「我們是誰？」的提問勾勒出海德格不曾遠離，反倒更有所深思的「政治」為何。最後則指出，海德格追本溯源、縱身躍入而有所開鑿與詮釋的polis，適足以統整他在存有、政治與「我們」不同向度與主題之間所做的推敲，並且給予我們在諸神退隱、技術耗盡大地之際，能不斷拾起如何在世間安身立命此一根本問題的一種可能。

關鍵字

海德格 ； 存有 ； 存有問題 ； 「我們是誰？」 ； 民族 ； polis ； 「政治」

並列摘要

As one of the most influential philosophers in 20th century, Heidegger is not only acclaimed for his tremendous effort and achievement on contemplating the question of Being(Seinsfrage), which also inspired other great minds in different intellectual domains; he also suffered some of the most severe critiques for his once “lost” in political actions and practices. Although he could return to his own course with a detached and critical attitude, he was still blamed for not willing to admit his own “fault” directly and publicly. Scholars of philosophy, politics and sociology pose different standpoints, interpretations, and judgments toward the so-called “Heidegger’s Case.” Under such background which forms a pre-understanding, this thesis attempts to return to Heidegger’s thinking legacy as such, takes it as the point of departure, and responds to the core problem of the case－the problem of the political. Based on such studying interest, instead of his political stance and assertions, we concentrate on Heidegger’s philosophical efforts－thinking the question of Being－try to find the foundation for his thinking on the political, locate both the end and the way of his thinking on such question.

As a result, the thesis is divided into two major parts. The first part answers the following questions with three chapters: How did the question of Being come into Heidegger’s horizon? How and why such question is connected with the question-raiser’s Being-transitive? During the period between 1927’s magnum opus, Being and Time and the early 1930s, how did Heidegger put a philosophical question which asks “Who we are” as a political question? The second part which includes the fourth chapter represents my own attempt. Following the question “Who we are,” I try to sketch out the contour of the political which Heidegger never put aside but contemplate far more than ever known. Finally, I would like to show that, by way of retrieving its origin and making a leap (Ur-sprung) for it, Heidegger’s interpretation and excavation of polis unified his deliberations between Being, the political and “We.” This also provides us a possibility which enable us to take up the question of how to settle ourselves in the world during the age of the flight of Gods and the exhaustion of the earth, anew and constantly.

並列關鍵字

Heidegger ； Being ； The Question of Being

參考文獻

Sophocles著，呂健忠譯，1998，《安蒂岡妮－墓窖裡的女人》，台北：書林。

Risser, James. 1999. Introduction to Heidegger toward the Turn, ed. James Risser. New York: State University of New York Press.

McNeill, William. 2001. The Time of Contributions to Philosophy. In Companion to Heidegger’s Contributions to Philosophy, ed. Charles E. Scott, Schoenbohm, etc. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Wolin, Richard. 1993. Introduction to Habermas’s “On the Publication of the Lecture of 1935.” In The Heidegger Controversy, ed. Richard Wolin. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Poetry, Language, Thought. 1971. Trans. Albert Hofstadter. New York: Harper & Row.