The aim of this article is to explore the ontological difference within Parmenides’s poem “Peri physeōs,” with a specific focus on line B 2.3, which reads: “exists, and it is not possible not to exist” (estin te kai hōs ouk esti mē einai). By interpreting “ouk esti” as a negative judgment and “mē einai” as a negative predication, I argue that this line already conceals the essence of the ontological difference, insofar as being is not an entity, and entities are (...) not-being. This interpretation draws on Plato’s notion of negation and difference as discussed in "The Sophist," as well as on Kantian infinite judgment. The distinction between these two negations enables the development of the concept of a meontological difference between“non-being” and “non-entities,” which lies at the core of the ontological difference between being and entities, and also illuminates Heidegger’s pairing of Ereignis and Enteignis. Additionally, I argue that Heidegger’s interpretation of Heraclitus in light of truth as alethēia relies on a similar double-negativity. Finally, I show the illuminating potential of examining the ontological difference in Parmenides by analyzing Heidegger’s 1949 preface to the third edition of the treatise “On the Essence of Ground” (1929). (shrink)

In this article, I examine Heraclitus’s 50th fragment with regard to the pronominal negation, ouk emou. In the first part of the paper, I argue that the dictum «one is all» is not something uttered by the logos, but rather is a response given by the human being according to the silent voice of the logos. Secondly, I proceed to analyze the deictic character of the negation ouk emou, aligning my interpretation with Agamben’s exposition of pronouns in Language and Death. (...) Thus, I argue that in Heraclitus’s case, the pronoun testifies to the event, or the happening, of language. This happening is demonstrated in a showing manner, rather than a communicative one. This reading enforces the argument that logos itself does not say anything, let alone that one is all, supporting Heidegger’s interpretation of language as consonance of silence (Geläut der Stille). (shrink)

The history of phenomenology is usually portrayed within its methodological scope and the same goes for its turning points, such as the hermeneutical approach developed by Martin Heidegger. I argue, however, that Gustav Shpet’s hermeneutical phenomenology has an ontological bearing and its methodological acceptance is subsidiary. I extract textual pieces of evidence from his critical appraisal of Husserl’s Ideen I, i.e. Appearance and Sense (1914), as well as from his phenomenological essay, The Consciousness and its Owner (1916), in order to (...) show that at the basis of hermeneutics as a method lies a hermeneutical being on its own. I support this claim by comparing in a topological-contemplative way—that is a methodological procedure found in Viorel Cernica’s work on history of Romanian philosophy—the ideas of Gustav Shpet and those of Martin Heidegger that converge on this point. I show that both of them conceived human subjectivity as being both unique and historical, a notion that denounces Husserl’s transcendental turn. However, I claim that this differentiation doesn’t imply a dissent from phenomenology, but rather its recasting into a different philosophical ethos. (shrink)