His encounter with Heidegger was not predetermined by the physical or social environment. It is true that Beaufret was born, in , in Auzances in the Creuse region near the center of France, a region where, he would say later in , the stone is hard, the earth is fallow, man is a peasant in winter and a bricklayer in summer. Jean Beaufret was thus ambiguous in this homage to the Creuse region, which he succeeded in escaping in an imaginary sense, in order to go to the Loire and its light. While, like Heidegger, he lived in the country as a child, he was not the son of a sacristan.
He was raised by two elementary school teachers in a system founded at the end of the nineteenth century by the secular Republic that taught the values of tolerance and freedom of thought. One should not be mistaken, then, about the so-called peasant soul of Jean Beaufret. He left his home in the country at eighteen to pursue his studies in Paris, where he lived later from to , for thirty-seven years.
Beaufret was much more a city person than Heidegger. The Thoughtful Dialogue Between Martin Heidegger and Jean Beaufret left-wing circles, keen on theatre, painting, poetry, and himself tempted by writing. From this perspective, it was quite possible that he and Heidegger would never have met. Jean Beaufret, having been taken prisoner, actually managed to jump from the train en route to the German camps. He taught in a free zone in Grenoble in , then at Lyon, from to He began to read Husserl and then Heidegger.
It was as if the fight against Nazism should not prevent the study of the greatest German thought. It was as if the necessity to act involved the necessity of a more concrete philosophy that was less abstract than Marxism and in a more direct grasp with proper existence, facing the risk of death: a death that no one can die in my place.
This period of the liberation of France was also a period of the liberation of ideas through existentialism. Beaufret felt the urgency to act through thought, and he grasped the importance of a clarification which would avoid confusion between Jaspers, Sartre, Gabriel Marcel, and Heidegger, and of taking a position—in a very lively debate between communists and existentialists—that would put things in their proper places.
Prix Renée Vivien
It is then chance that made the encounter between Heidegger and Beaufret possible. The facts are known but I want to discuss the role of chance and then that of necessity. Beaufret then by chance met Towarnicki, who told him about Heidegger. Impressed by this coincidence, Beaufret decided to write to the German thinker in November ,.
Pierre Jacerme and Heidegger answered him on November 23, First, there is the mediation of the writing and the reading. Heidegger told Beaufret he had only read issues 2 and 5 of Confluences. Issue number 2 dealt with Kierkegaard and the idea of existence in Heidegger.
Un silence de clairière (LITT.GENERALE) (French Edition)
Beaufret had understood, at that very time, that the main point was to raise anew the question posed by Plato and Aristotle, namely the question of Being on the basis of existence, such as it may be for each of us a proper existence. Hence, what is striking is that the Heidegger-Beaufret relation occurred through a symbolic mediation in which both are involved from the beginning, namely, through the philosophical tradition. Philosophy intervenes in this text Cerisy as that which is to be rethought in its proper essence.
Why think that a revolution is imminent? Why was this the case for both Heidegger and Beaufret? This is why, when Heidegger and Beaufret met—and first through the writing and the reading—chance took the form of a philosophical necessity that would commit them equally to the dialogue. When I say that their encounter involved philosophical mediation, this means that the philosophical tradition was the medium for their encounter—an encounter that had to reconstruct what had been shattered and destroyed, that is to say, which had to invent a.
The Project Gutenberg e-Book of Histoire de la Littérature Anglaise, Tome 2; Author: H. Taine.
The Thoughtful Dialogue Between Martin Heidegger and Jean Beaufret new way of thinking, an encounter that was therefore always open to the future and in that sense always to come, even if it was to take place, even if it had already taken place. I insist on this crucial point: because Heidegger and Beaufret happened to experience together, in , the impact of total destruction, including that of the rational philosophical tradition which led to Hiroshima, it was therefore necessary for them to offer an entirely new thinking.
This means at least two things: first, that their relation was on an equal footing and was not the relation between a master and his disciple. Second, that each would learn to decipher the language of the other on the basis of the failure of his own language. And this would require that their relation be a dialogue.
We know the master-disciple relation in philosophy, for example, between Socrates and Plato, Plato and Aristotle, and even between Husserl and Heidegger. What characterizes this relation is its nonreversibility: when the disciple achieves his or her own proper thought, he or she does not become the master of the master and the master does not become the disciple; there is a break, after a rather long period of joint work eighteen years in the case of Plato and Aristotle.
Between Heidegger and Beaufret, the relation lasted thirty years. The result was an apprenticeship rather than a relation of a master and a disciple; the Heidegger-Beaufret relation was based on an equal footing. That relation is reversible. The teacher is taught, the person taught is a teacher. This apprenticeship unfolded for each, in his own language, through the experience of the language of the other.
For example, in his experience with the Greek term ousia, Heidegger discovered in the play between Anwesenheit and Gegenwart the relation between being and time that was unthought by the Greeks. It was necessary to learn how to read and to decipher the philosophical text in a new way; to learn as one learns a language, from the grammar. Preparing oneself to think would be first like learning to spell the letters.
- Prix Renée Vivien;
- On the History of Economic Thought: British and American Economic Essays: Vol 1.
- The Complete Compact Guide to Disaster Survival!
Beaufret said to Towarnicki: Heidegger is like a school teacher who, in the darkness of the text, teaches us to distinguish between the letters, to form the syllables, to group the words. Before him. Heidegger, on the contrary, reveals it all: the result is a totally new thing that is called reading. That word was dialogue: Dialogue with Heidegger. The French language would provide Heidegger the limit of clarity and the sense of the right nuance, protecting him from the risk and excess of being overly prophetic the danger Jaspers felt.
The German language gave Beaufret speculative depth, allowing him to avoid being simply witty, thanks to a style that was more baroque rather than pedantic. This is what happened at Cerisy and at the Thor Seminar. When one is listening to the other, the risk is to be colonized by him. Hence we have to let the other one be. The experience of the dialogue, then, takes on a deeper meaning: dia-legein, logos. This is what took place on September 10, , during the first meeting between Heidegger and Beaufret at Todtnauberg, again when a site was cleared for the dictation of Being.
It was published in , and then in in Heidegger Studies under the title Die Grundfrage nach dem Sein selbst, and finally republished by Towarnicki in This feature concerns temporality. Being and Time was presented to Beaufret as if seen from the perspective of the marginal notes. The past became present through the future that was already there, the future also made present. But I think this sentence must be read literally because of the relation that Beaufret himself had with time.
When I met Beaufret, I was struck by his readiness to evoke past events in minute detail, and by his capacity, in particular, to remember a conversation from ten or twenty years earlier as though it was happening now, along with the nuances of the words that were said.
For a long time I believed that Beaufret had an exceptional memory. In this way, the dimensions of time are gathered together, and time as a whole was present in the same time. Reminiscence, that a priori of any memory, was making time be, that is to say, time opened on the clearing of being in the form of a world.
An unpublished note that Beaufret wrote in confirms this. Season would be better. Being and Season. The epochs of history are the seasons of being. A season in hell.
This enabled him to learn more quickly and then to seek to go farther once the thinking of being was presented to him as a world. We will try to address this shortly. The Thoughtful Dialogue Between Martin Heidegger and Jean Beaufret For the moment we can use the date given by Beaufret himself to clarify the main periods of his relation to Heidegger.
The period of apprenticeship spanned from to We are going to try to characterize the major features of the style of the apprenticeship, and then wonder in what sense Beaufret can be said to have gone further. The last seven paragraphs of the work concern humanism and the necessity to think the privative essence of aletheia positively.
She's Out Of the Closet. Now What?
Very moved by this text, Beaufret had sent a second letter to Heidegger with three questions, and suddenly on December 12, , G. Still now that aspect of the book remains hidden. Here the dialogue is no longer simply a preparation for listening but a way toward the thing insofar as it withdraws and thus calls for thinking. Quite clearly, when we say apprenticeship, we have in mind both the context of the craft and that of the workshop in the twofold sense of the craftsman and the.
It is a matter of thinking the unthought on the basis of what it has given us to think. Kant is situated with Aristotle and Plato, because he experiences the presence of things on the basis of the horizon of their appearance, hence on the basis of a Greek horizon. This is a movement that is ruled by a techne. IV, But if now I speak of it, then everything begins to turn: the wood becomes inapparent, and that which shows itself as the subjectum is now the fountain insofar as I speak of it, that is to say, seized in the categories of my discourse.
In so far as the logos has joined its being, the appearance is other. What Aristotle experienced there and what we just learned at the same time the phenomenological approach produces this contemporaneity is the. The turning designates the bend in the path that goes up the mountain. We do not reverse the direction of the path, when one turns it is the path itself that goes in the opposite direction in order to continue.
Contemporaneity is the way in which the realm of the site of origin appears. That also produced for us the equivalent of what was for the Greeks the overwhelming presence of aletheia, namely an effect of Ereignis. The apprenticeship allowed by the step back outside philosophy in order to take it into view produces an Ereignis effect because metaphysics is the only complete epoch of the history of Being that one can see from beginning to end.
He thinks with a sharp clarity that makes thinking always more profound.