16000-24

However, what does it mean to ‘summon one to Being-guilty’? The meaning of “summon” is temporality. We have shown that the authentic meaning of this term is temporality. In our further analysis, we shall make this even more clear. Nevertheless, we may venture a projection of the ontological genesis of the sense of “Being-guilty” in general. <|endoftext|> Our next aim is to find the right position for attacking the primordial question of the essence of history-that is to say, for construing historicality existentially. This position is designated by that which is primordially historical. Therefore, we shall begin our study by characterizing what one has in view in using the expressions’ history’ and ‘historical’ in the ordinary Interpretation of Dasein. These expressions get used in several ways. The most obvious ambiguity of the term ‘history’ has often been noticed, and there is nothing ‘fuzzy’ about it. It evinces itself in that this term may mean the ‘historical actuality’ and the possible science of it. We shall provisionally eliminate the signification of ‘history’ in the sense of a “science of history” (historiology).

16000-23

The expression ‘history’ has various significations with which one view neither the science of history nor even history as an Object, but this same entity itself, not necessarily Objectified among such significations, which this entity is understood as something past may well be the pre-eminent usage. This signification is evinced in the kind of talk in which we say that something or other “already belongs to history”. Here’ past’ means “no longer present-at-hand”, or even “still present-at-hand indeed, but without having any ‘effect’ on the ‘Present’ “. Of course, the historical as that which is past has also the opposite signification, when we say, “One cannot get away from history.” Here, by “history”, we have in view that which is past, but which nevertheless is still having effects. Howsoever, the historical, as that which is past, is understood to be related to the ‘Present’ in the sense of what is actual ‘now’ and ‘today’, and to be related to it, either positively or privatively, in such a way as to have effects upon it. Thus ‘the past’ has a special double meaning; the past belongs irretrievably to an earlier time; it belonged to the events of that time; and despite that, it can still be present-at-hand ‘now'-for instance, the remains of a Greek temple. With the temple, a ‘bit of the past’ is still ‘in the present’.

16000-22

We next have in mind that the term “history” is not so much ‘the past’ in the sense of that which is past, but rather derivation from such a past. Anything that ‘has a history’ stands in the context of a becoming. In such becoming, ‘development’ is sometimes a rise, sometimes a fall. What ‘has a history’ in -this way can, at the same time, ‘make’ such history. As 'epoch-making', it determines 'a future' 'in the present'. Here “history” signifies a ‘context’ of events and ‘effects’, which draws on through ‘the past’, the ‘Present’, and the ‘future’. On this view, the past has no special priority.