The following statement may be regarded as a certain “translation” of Heidegger, though of course it cannot conform to Heidegger’s original intention.
Traditional Western philosophy, or rather the entire history of Western thought, has taken as its main thread the “search for certainty.” Around this craving for certainty have unfolded philosophy’s pursuit of “being,” science’s pursuit of universal laws, ethics’ pursuit of clear rules, religion’s pursuit of immortal bliss, and so on. All learning seeks certainty, seeks what is fixed and unchanging.
Originally, the search for certainty and the search for possibility were not necessarily in conflict. However, the search for certainty eventually expanded beyond measure, so much so that people came to reject possibility and flee possibility, reject freedom and flee freedom.
People formulate laws, formulate ethical rules, and in the end it seems as though, relying on those rules, we can make the right judgments and trade-offs in any situation. We hand over “choice” to objective standards, while ourselves are able to shirk the responsibility of choosing.
We hope that everything is certain; certain things give people a sense of security. McDonald’s is very safe, because it tastes the same wherever you go. Globalization and homogenization are also results of the search for certainty.
Whether it is Soviet-style socialism or American-style democracy, the direction is the same—whether it is *Nineteen Eighty-Four* or *Brave New World*, their common feature is that everything is so “certain.”
When Heidegger opposed the whole tradition of Western philosophy, was there perhaps this layer of meaning? — namely, to let possibility be understood, preserved, and cultivated as possibility.
What does it mean to preserve and cultivate possibility? Let me give an example:
Looking for a job. There are two attitudes toward job hunting. One is to seek certainty—to find a bowl of rice, and then one’s heart is settled, one feels secure, one has something to rely on.
Of course, every choice is in some sense a deprivation of possibility. For example, if I choose to go to Peking University, that means the many possibilities I originally still had—going to Tsinghua University, going to Fudan University, going to Shanghai Jiao Tong University, and so on—are all deprived. Choosing one profession will inevitably “reduce” certain possibilities. So how is it possible to preserve possibility?
In fact, preserving possibility by no means means making no choice. If one chooses no job at all, remains an unemployed drifter, does nothing, and wastes time in hesitation and indecision, then in the end not a single possibility has been preserved.
Human beings are always choosing beings; choosing nothing is itself a choice. Unless one completely gives up thinking, follows the drives of the flesh, and becomes a being like an animal, in which case of course there are even fewer possibilities. The key lies in: for what do we make our choice? Certainty, or possibility?
Those who pursue possibility will notice that the choice of a profession can open up new possibilities: not in order to seek stability and certainty, but in order to allow new possibilities to unfold, we must make choices.
January 14, 2008
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply