II.vi The Task of Destroying the History of Ontology

Dasein "understands itself proximally and, within a certain range, constantly."

"Dasein has had its historcially so thoroughly uprooted by tradition that it confines its interest to the multiformity of possible types, directions, and standpoints of philosophical activity in the most exotic and alien of cultures; and by this very interest it seeks to veil the fact taht it has no ground of its own to stand on. Consequently, despite all its historiological interests and all its zeal for Interpretation which is philologically 'objective' ["sachliche"], Dasein no longer understands the most elementary conditions which would alone enable it to go back to the past in a positive manner and make it productively its own."

RECAP: The question of the meaning of Being has not been attended to, it has been inadequately formulated, and it has become forgotten

Dasein understands either itself or Being in general, it does so in terms of the 'world', and and that the ontology which has thus arisen has deteriorated [verfallt] to a tradition in which it gets reduced to soemthing self-evident-merely material for reworking, as it was for Hegel. (As it was with uprooted Greek ontology of the Middle Ages)

all leading to Metaphysics (from Suarez to Hegel)

...all formalizations of such ontology either neglect the question of Being entirely or reduce Being negatively...or in regard to Hegel- Dialectic has been called in for the purpose of Interpreting the substantiality of the subject ontologically.

Heidegger: "...hardened tradition must be loosened up, and the concealment which it has brought about must be dissolved. We understand that this task as one in which by taking the question of Being as our clue, we are to destroy the traditional content of ancient ontology until we arrive at those primordial experiences in which we achieved our first ways of determining the nature of Being-the ways which have guided us ever since."

"we have nothing to do with a vicious relativizing of ontological standpoints."

this destruction of ontology is a postiive function, not a negative function

KANT was aware of the task of ontology as obscure and justifiying it as such, he shrinks back from the question of Being.

Kant neglected the problem of being, failed to provide an ontology with Dasein as its theme "preliminary ontological analytic of the subjectivity of the subject"

Instead, Kant took Descartes position (indefinite ontological status)

Although he brought time into the equation, he brought in time as it is traditionally understood,

Thus, the connection between time (operating within the structures which Aristotle has set forth) and I think was shroudeded and the question of Being was never at issue.

utlimately he failed to provide an ontology of Dasein. and from here on out the question of Being (seemingly concrete) was brushed over for the remainder of history.