Heidegger e l'Essere come (non) fondamento

Heidegger pensa l’Essere non come fondamento per non ricadere nell’errore metafisico. Tuttavia, non essendoci un fondamento, il divenire e’ libero da ogni vincolo. Questa e’ anche la critica di Severino. La tecnica e’ un tentativo illusorio di combattere l’angoscia che ci provoca l’inesorabile scorrere annichilatore del tempo. Quindi a mio avviso l’Essere concepito come non fondamento non e’ efficace per neutralizzare la tecnica. Secondo me si puo’ pensare all’Essere come fondamento, come immutabile e allo stesso tempo non definibile, non calcolabile, non riducibile ad oggetto. In fodo noi siamo parte del tutto e quindi non possiamo mai afferrare l’Essere nella sua totalita’.

What is BEING?

Can we define, calculate, capture the BEING? I think we cannot and if we attempt to do so we would end up considering the BEING as a thing. However the BEING is not a thing, it is not a sum of all things, we can only talk about it in metaphors. I would compare the BEING to a puzzle. It is a sum of all pieces put in a precise order so that it is equally important to consider both the pieces and the order they are put to get the full picture of the puzzle. As we are little pieces of the puzzle we can never grasp the wholeness and the meaning of it. We can have an idea of the whole but we can never fully comprehend it. We live in an era dominated by technology, we think that one day we will be able to control the flow of time and eventually become immortal. I think that it is just a crazy idea due to our incapacity to live in the uncertainty. Stating that we cannot grasp the whole implies an ethical assertion: we are limited and we must learn to cope with that.