The fourfold deals with the phenomena present for particular dasein, a Bavarian peasant, say. An Eskimo’s would have a different manifold; maybe a threefold, or ice instead of earth. I don’t find the fourfold that interesting, but the other week I read/saw/heard someone use a diagram of the fourfold–the intersection of the lines between man and gods, and earth and sky–to cross out “being” in the center. I thought it was a neat trick, but I’m easily amused like that.

The phenomenology, Clark. Use the phenomenology.

Heidegger’s tries many different ways to articulate beyng enowns dasein. You can judge how successful any is by interrogating the phenomenon described. I end up discarding or setting aside many passages, but some have that ability (as with bits of B&T) of cutting through the accumulated metaphysical chaff and revealing a simple ontological kernel.

The one thing I worry about is that Contributions appears to be more aphorisms and the like. One thing I like about the pre-war Heidegger is how he provides arguments or at least quasi-arguments via a trace of a phenomenological path. That is much rarer with the latter Heidegger. This is roughly from that earlier period but appears to partake more of that latter style.

With that latter style, as much as I might agree with what Heidegger sees I’m always left asking, “but why should I assume this is right?” So it’s very hard not to be skeptical.