Only A Dialogue Can Save Us: The Dialogical Character of Heidegger’s Conception of Destiny (Geschick)

Abstract

There is a plethora of books and scholarly articles dealing with the question of the nature of destiny. But neither of them enables us to obtain a solid grasp on the matter. This inability is the impossibility of metaphysics. Heidegger’s contribution to those discussions is apparently a non-metaphysical one, but on the other hand can be seen as bogged down in mysticism or at least a violation of scholarly principles and thus appears to share similar inabilities with its precedents. The questions of whether he could avoid metaphysics, there be mystical elements in his thought or the claims alleged on Heidegger’s so-called self-contradictory thoughts be real or fictitious are neither re-asked nor replied in this paper but stand at the background because of their relevance to the metaphilosophy of Heidegger. This paper is meant to discover “authentic destiny of man” so that it may discern true way of doing philosophy in Heideggerian terms. Heidegger’s approach to the matter stands, in one sense, in sharp contrast to the fatalist tradition, in another appears to presume ineluctability. This seemingly contradictory precedents can be reconciled with reference to Heideggerian terminology. Through an analysis of affined terms such as dialogue, truth, correctness, Dasein (there being), logos (Word), legein (speaking), fate, being-in-a-world, historical perception, historiography and disclosedness, this paper utilizes this possibility to provide an answer to the question of destiny. The main questions dealt in this paper are what the nature of the force of destiny is, how far it extends and by virtue of what it pursues its course. By narrowing down the subject into the history of thought, something that can be tackled by Heidegger’s works, the argument departed from Heideggerian way of doing philosophy: establishing dialogue with the history. In order to reach a fair and tenable explanation for the validity and influence of such a method, necessary examples are cited throughout the article. The main finding that emerged from this research was that ambiguity as the common outcome of dialogues creates a space for the suspension of the customary meaning and acknowledgment of a whole new one. This space is where the paths of history change profoundly. This explanation model also let us to rethink thinker as the one who creates history, is sustained by history, and also beset by history. Only thereby could we make sense of static and dynamic aspects of destiny together.