«Даму туралы ілім: а «диалектика – даму туралы ілім»; б «диалектиканың заңдары мен категориялары»; в «диалектиканың принциптері»

Heidegger reverses the traditional way of philosophizing, in which the unknown is explained from the known, he takes as a starting point exactly what has not yet been explained. It is necessary to take into account the fact that Heidegger does not attribute the unexplained to the sphere of the yet unknown, but to the area of the hidden, secret. Just as the hidden in Heidegger serves as a means of revealing everything that exists, the unknown serves as a way of explaining the known and the known. In a philosophical form, this appears as the revelation of being through Nothing. If traditional metaphysics – starting with Plato and Plotinus – proceeded from the understanding of being as light, God as the sun, then Heidegger considers the highest principle not that from which light comes, but that which is eternally hidden from light, it is a kind of black sun, thanks to which light itself becomes visible. Just as darkness, according to Heidegger, is not simply the absence of light, so Nothing, the metaphysical analogue of darkness, cannot be regarded as simply the absence of being, i.e. it cannot be interpreted nihilistically.

Such a misinterpretation of Nothing, according to Heidegger, is characteristic only of the metaphysical way of thinking, so firmly established on European soil that a true understanding of Nothing is no longer available to a European person. In non-European cultures, such an understanding of Nothing is alien. So, talking with a Japanese, Heidegger discovered that when identifying the meaning of the word ”Ku", which is close to the concept of Nothing, the Japanese came to wonder: ,, ... how Europeans could have fallen to the point of interpreting Nothing nihilistically. For us, emptiness is the highest name for what you would most likely call the word ,,being” .

So, the Heidegger principle is to understand the explicit through the implicit, what is said, through what cannot be said, to understand the word through silence, being through the carrier, being through Nothing.

But where to look for Nothing? Where do we have a chance to encounter him? We never grasp everything that exists in its totality, but the feeling of being among things as a whole is constantly taking place in our being. It looks as if in our everyday life we are tied to any particular entity, as if we are lost in this or that circle of existence. However, the seemingly split everyday life contains the being as a unity of the whole. Sometimes this being as a whole suddenly captures us, for example, with real boredom – when melancholy takes over. ,Deep melancholy, wandering in the depths of our being, like a dull fog, shifts all things, people and yourself together with them into one mass of some strange indifference.” This longing reveals the existence as a whole, which is a fundamental event of our being. Another possibility of such an opening is the joy of the proximity of the presence of a loved one. However, such sentiments obscure Nothing from us.

What could be put in front of Nothing is a mood that, by the very essence of the unfolding that takes place in it, reveals Nothing. Direct,,contact? According to Heidegger, nothing happens in a state of terror. Horror is fundamentally different from fear, fear.

In his work, ”Being and Time" Heidegger examines in detail the phenomenon of fear. We are always afraid of a particular entity that threatens us in one way or another in a certain way. The fear of something always concerns certain things, too, therefore, the fearful and timid are firmly connected with the things among which they are. In an effort to escape from something – from this - they are also lost in relation to the rest, i.e., in general, they “lose their heads".

Fear itself is the giving-to-hurt release of the so-characterized threatening. Fear does not just state what is coming, but first reveals it in its awfulness. And, being afraid, fear can then, looking clearly at itself, “understand” the terrible. That about which fear is afraid is the very being that is afraid, Dasein.

Only the being, for whom the matter of his being is about himself, is capable of being afraid. Fear exposes his presence in being here. Fear can also concern others, and we say then that we are afraid for them. This fear for ... does not remove the fear from the other, because the one for whom we are afraid, for his part, does not necessarily have to be in fear. At the same time, I am afraid for an event with another, which may be taken away from me.

The constructive moments of the full phenomenon of fear can vary. At the same time, various existential possibilities of intimidation appear. The approach in the vicinity belongs to the structure of the encounter of the aggressor. As soon as the threatening in its “although not yet, but at any moment” itself suddenly bursts into being-in-the-world, fear becomes fear. Therefore, in the threatening one, it is necessary to distinguish: the nearest approach of the threatening and the kind of encounter of the approach itself, suddenness.

Before the fright, it is usually something familiar and peculiar. When the threatening has the character of a complete stranger, fear becomes a horror. And if the threatening meets with the features of the creepy and at the same time has another feature of the opposite of the frightening, suddenness, then fear becomes horror.

With terror, there is no place for the confusion characteristic of fear. Horror has a kind of numb peace. There is a phenomenal difference between what terror is terrified of and what fear is afraid of. Although horror is always horror before something, but not before this particular thing. Why horror is not an inner-world existence. Therefore, with him, in his essence, no estate-business is possible. The threat does not have the character of a certain harmfulness that affects the threatened in a certain aspect of some special factual possibility to be. From what horror is absolutely indeterminate, which not only leaves undecided which inner-world entity threatens, but suggests that the inner-world entity is not “relevant" here. The intramirally disclosed integrity of the estate-business as such has nothing to do with it at all. The world has the character of complete insignificance. In horror, he meets not this or that, with which, as threatening, there could be a case. That is why horror does not “see” a certain “here” and “there” from where the threatening is coming here. For what horror is characterized by threatening nowhere, he does not know what he is terrified of. Therefore, the threatening cannot approach here in a certain direction within proximity, it is already “here” – and yet nowhere, it is so close that it squeezes and interrupts breathing – and yet nowhere. As a result of his horror, his “nothing and nowhere" comes out. The encroachment of the inner-world nothingness and nowhere means phenomenally that from what horror there is a world as such. Nothing acts as the cause of horror, i.e. the world as such.

In horror, a person becomes creepy. It is impossible to say what a person is scared of. ”All things and we ourselves are drowning in some kind of indifference. We are sinking, however, not in the sense of simply disappearing, but things are turning towards us by this settling of their own as such.” With horror, the subsidence of existence as a whole suppresses us, leaving nothing to support. By making things as a whole slip away, horror takes the earth from under our feet. With the general failure of existence, we also slip away from ourselves. That Nothing is revealed by horror, the person himself confirms immediately, as soon as the horror recedes. Then ordinary speech usually says: “what actually happened? nothing.” This speech ontically guesses essentially what was there. We have to admit that there was nothing there before and about which we were terrified. Nothing itself – as such – appeared to us. Thus, it is in the fundamental mood of horror that we reach the event in our being, thanks to which Nothing is revealed.

Nothing makes itself felt in a mood of horror, but at the same time it does not act as an entity and not as a subject of analysis. Horror is not a way of comprehending Nothing, but it is in it that Nothing is revealed. With horror, the being as a whole becomes shaky and Nothing opens up together with the being and in the being as in its entirety escaping.

In horror, there is a recoil from something, but this recoil is not an escape, but a numb peace. Recoil comes from Nothing, which, according to its essence, sends away from itself and, due to the fact that it makes the being slip away, pushes it away to the elusive being as a whole. This repulsion-sending, which pushes us from everywhere in terror, is a being of Nothingness: nothingness. Nothingness reveals the sinking being as a whole in complete, previously hidden strangeness as something completely Different – as opposed to Nothing. There is a revelation of being as such: it is revealed that it is being, and not Nothing. The seemingly optional addition “and not Nothing”, according to Heidegger, is the initial condition for the possibility of any disclosure of existence in general.

Thus, the being of Nothing consists in turning away from the being, in remoteness from it. Only in this remoteness can existence be revealed as such. Nothing is a naked negation of existence. On the contrary, Nothing refers us in its insignificance to the being in its openness. The nothingness of Nothingness is being. The purpose of the lecture, which Heidegger gave before a meeting of scientists and faculties, was thereby to show that there is something other than the subject of their absorbing studies, and that it is this other that makes it possible for the first time that what they are doing takes place at all. This clarifies one of the most important phrases of the lecture, which poses the main question of metaphysics: ,, Why is there anything at all, and not rather Nothing?”. This question was posed by Leibniz before Heidegger. However, his answer was theological and limited to pointing to the supreme Being, the Creator of the best of the worlds. The question posed by Heidegger, on the contrary, does not seek out the Root Cause, but tries to get out of the forgetfulness of being. Heidegger wonders why, in human thinking, existence breaks into the foreground, condemning insignificant Nothingness to oblivion.

,,Human presence means: being pushed into Nothingness” . Only on the basis of the primordial manifestation of Nothing is the human presence able to approach the being and penetrate into it. Because our being by its very essence consists in relation to the being what it is not and what it itself is, as such a presence it always comes from a previously already revealed Nothing. Pushed into Nothingness, our presence at any moment has always already stepped out of existence as a whole in advance. This projection beyond the limits of existence is, according to Heidegger, transcendence. Consequently, if our presence were not transcendent at the base of its being, i.e., if it were not always already advanced into Nothing in advance, it could not stand in relation to existence, and therefore to itself.

Thus, Nothing is not an object, nor anything that exists at all. It does not occur either by itself or by side from the being, does not constitute an antonym to the being, but initially belongs to its very basis. Nothing is a condition for the possibility of revealing existence as such for human existence.