PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION

In Heidegger’s personal copy of the first edition of this book there is a note on the title page that, judging by the handwriting, dates from the mid-1930s. The note reads:

Kantbook.
With Being and Time alone —; soon
clear that we did not enter into
the real question [see I 3. T1This refers to Part 3 of Division I of Being and Time. and Destruction2The destruction of the history of Ontology in Division II of Being and Time.]
A refuge — underway and
               not new discoveries
               in Kant Philology.—
[Being] Beingness-Objectness
               and “time”
                       Schematism
but at the same time: the particular way is obstructed
              and is made susceptible to misinterpretation
See Part IV3The fourth pan of the Kant book.
Beiträge4Beitrage zur Philosophie (GA, vol. 65). [The word order of the last two lines of this transcription has been changed from that of the fourth edition to that of the GA edition. The text of this footnote has also been changed to reflect the publication of the Beiträge in the GA in 1989—tr.]— Beginning to new beginning — Concept
of Reflection

The preceding remarks mentioned the decisive motivation for the publication of the Kant book: the misunderstanding of the Question of Being presented in Being and Time, which had already become clear in 1929. In preparing the lecture course on “Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason” that was held in the Winter Semester of 1927/28,<1>This lecture course has been published as volume 25 of Heidegger’s Gesamtausgabe under the title Phänomenologische Interpretation von Kants Kritik der Reinen Vernunft, ed. 1. Gland (Frankfurt a. M., 1977). my attention was drawn to the chapter on Schematism, and I glimpsed therein a connection between the problem of Categories, that is, the problem of Being in traditional Metaphysics and the phenomenon of time. In this way the manner of questioning from Being and Time came into play as an anticipation of my attempted interpretation of Kant. Kant’s text became a refuge, as I sought in Kant an advocate for the question of Being which I posed.

The refuge, moreover, determined in this way, led me to interpret the Critique of Pure Reason from within the horizon of the manner of questioning set forth in Being and Time. In truth, however, Kant’s question is foreign to it, even though it would have given another meaning to the presupposed manner of questioning.<2> wenngleich sie bedingende Fragestellung untergelegt wurde.

In later writings (see the preliminary note to the third edition, 1965) I attempted to retract the overinterpretation [Oberdeutung] without at the same time writing a correspondingly new version of the Kant book itself.

Hansgeorg Hoppe provides an instructive critical overview of the change in my Kant interpretation, referring to earlier critical comments in the anthology Durchblicke (1970), published by Vittorio Klostermann, pp. 284-317.

The discussion of the “Transcendental Power of Imagination” set forth in the Kant book is supplemented by Hermann Mörchen in his Marburg dissertation (1928) entitled, “Die Einbildungskraft bei Kant,” Jahrbuch für Philosophie und phänomenologische Forschung, volume XI (Saale: Max Niemeyer Halle, 1930). An unaltered edition was published by Max Niemeyer (Tübingen: 1970) as an offprint.

The Kant book, written immediately after the conclusion of the second Davos Hochschule course (March 17-April 6, 1929), was based on the preparatory work [for that course] (see the preface to the first edition).

The appendix to the present edition contains my summary of my three Davos lectures on “Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason and the Task of a laying of the Ground for Metaphysics” (appearing in the Davoser Revue, IV, 7, 1929, pp.194-196).

In addition there is a report on the disputation between Ernst Cassirer and me in connection with the lectures we held. In three lectures, Cassirer spoke about philosophical anthropology, specifically, about the problem of space, of language, and of death 5The text of the Davoser Disputation is a transcript compiled by O. F. Bollnow and J. Ritter, who were participants in the Davos course. According to a communication from O. F. Bollnow, it is not a word-for-word protocol, but is rather a subsequent elaboration based on notes taken at the time. O. F. Bollnow furnished the typed text for the purpose of typesetting, and for that we would thank him here..

The Kant book remains an introduction, attempted by means of a questionable digression, to the further questionability which persists concerning the Question of Being set forth in Being and Time.

The growing and unacknowledged anxiety in the face of thinking no longer allows insight into the forgetfulness of Being which determines the age.

I would like in particular to thank the publisher, Dr. Vittorio Klostermann, for his longstanding interest in this book. My thanks are also extended to Dr. Hildegard Feick (Wiesbaden) and Dr. Friedrich-Wilhelm von Herrmann (Freiburg im Breisgau) for the careful handling of the corrections.

End of August 1973                                                                  M.H.