Brauch (late-Heidegger use/need of mortals by the Eignis)

Heidegger's late-Heidegger term for the use / need that the Ereignis (the Eignis) exerts on the mortals, and that mortals owe to the Eignis. Locus classicus: Zeit und Sein (1962) marginalia (4) at p. 15 ("Brauchen"), (10) at p. 23 ("Brauch"), and (11) at p. 23: "Vereignung: die Sterblichen sind in der Eignis eigens in ihr Eigenstes gerufen, insofern sie von der Eignis für diese selbst gebraucht bleiben." The cardinal expanded formulation is in the Beilage zum Vortrag Zeit und Sein (1973): "den Brauch, zur Eignis gehörend und das Da-sein mitnennend" and in the Beilage zum Vortrag Das Ende der Philosophie: "Die Aufgabe des Denkens und das Es, das gibt. (die brauchende Eignis) »brauchend«: in den Brauch eingelassen."

Confidence: medium — Brauch is foregrounded in the marginalia and Beilagen rather than in the main body of the 1962 lecture; the 1973 Beilage flags that the lecture zurückzustellen the Brauch was unmögliche, leaving the Ereignis "in einer abgerissenen Gestalt." The Brauch-thematic is therefore consequential but not fully unfolded in the 1962 lecture; the wiki page records the formulations available in the lecture, Beilagen, and Protokoll, and flags the unfinished aspects.

Key Points

  • Brauch is the Bezug Eignis-Mensch: not a unilateral act of the Eignis (which would be Vereignung) nor a unilateral disposition of the Mensch (which would be Bereitschaft) but a Verhältnis — the Eignis braucht the Mensch, and the Mensch ist gebraucht.
  • The mortals are in der Eignis eigens in ihr Eigenstes gerufen, insofern sie von der Eignis für diese selbst gebraucht bleiben. Marginal (11) at p. 23 is the cardinal formulation. The Vereignung (appropriation of mortals) takes its form from the Brauch — mortals are called into their ownmost by the Eignis's needing them for itself.
  • The Brauch is the missing-thematic of Zeit und Sein: the 1973 Beilage flags that the lecture's attempt to zurückstellen the Brauch (which belongs to the Eignis and names-with the Da-sein) was unmöglich. The lecture as a whole is unzureichend for this reason.
  • The Es, das gibt, is the brauchende Eignis: per the Beilage zum Vortrag Das Ende der Philosophie (in same volume): "Die Aufgabe des Denkens und das Es, das gibt. (die brauchende Eignis) »brauchend«: in den Brauch eingelassen." The Geben is itself a Brauch-relation; the Es gibt-formula is insufficient without the brauchende Eignis-deepening.
  • The Mensch is in den Brauch eingelassen — let-into the Brauch. Eingelassen (let-into) is the passive-active word: the Mensch does not enter the Brauch by its own activity, nor does the Brauch seize the Mensch passively; the Mensch is let-into the Brauch.
  • Cross-corpus anchors: the Brauch-thematic runs through the late corpus — Was heißt Denken? (1951/52, GA 8); the Spruch des Anaximander in Holzwege (GA 5) — χρεών as the Greek anchor; Heraklit's χρεὼν δέ in marginal (17) at the lecture; the Was ist Metaphysik?-Nachwort. The 1962 lecture's marginalia are one cluster in this larger Brauch-Bogen.

Details

From SuZ-Sorge to 1962 Brauch

SuZ's Sorge (care) is the Sein of Dasein — the unity of Existenzialien (Befindlichkeit, Verstehen, Rede) articulated as Sich-vorweg-schon-sein-in-(der-Welt-)als-Sein-bei (innerweltlich begegnendem Seienden). Sorge is the Mensch-side structure of the Bezug zum Sein.

The 1962 Brauch is the Eignis-side structure of the Bezug zum Sterblichen. Where SuZ describes the Mensch's Wie of being-toward-Sein (Sorge), the 1962 Brauch describes the Eignis's Wie of needing-the-Mensch. The two are not simple inverses: SuZ's Sorge is grounded in Zeitlichkeit (Mensch-side); 1962's Brauch is grounded in the Eignis (Eignis-side). The shift is not from one Mensch-existential to another but from a Mensch-side structure to an Eignis-side structure.

The Beilage zum Vortrag (1973): "den Brauch, zur Eignis gehörend und das Da-sein mitnennend." The Brauch is to the Eignis belonging (Eignis-side) but names-with the Da-sein (Mensch-side). The Brauch is the Verhältnis — gehörig to the Eignis but Da-sein-mitnennend.

The Vereignung-Brauch nexus

Marginal (11) at p. 23: "Vereignung: die Sterblichen sind in der Eignis eigens in ihr Eigenstes gerufen, insofern sie von der Eignis für diese selbst gebraucht bleiben."

The cardinal nexus: Vereignung (appropriation of mortals into their Eigenstes) is grounded in the Brauch (the Eignis's needing the mortals for itself). Three components:

  1. Eigentlich gerufen: mortals are called eigens (in their ownmost) into their Eigenstes (most-own). The Anruf (call) is into the mortals' own.
  2. Insofern... gebraucht bleiben: the Insofern clause is the ground of the Anruf. The mortals are called because the Eignis needs them for itself.
  3. Für diese selbst: not for some external purpose. The Eignis needs the mortals for the Eignis itself — i.e., the Brauch is internal to the Eignis's own Bewegtheit.

The Eignis braucht den Sterblichen für die Eignis selbst: the formula collapses the distinction between Eignis and Sterbliche in the Brauch. The Eignis's Sein (if such a word still applies — see ereignis) includes the Brauch as constitutive; the mortals' Sein (if such a word still applies — see dasein) includes the Gebraucht-Sein as constitutive.

The Enteignis-Brauch nexus

The Brauch carries a structural Gefahr: marginal (9) at p. 23: "Die Vereignung bleibt stets der Gefahr ausgesetzt, daß die Sterblichen ihr nicht genügen, weil sie ihnen verborgen bleiben und so in der Eignis entzogen bleiben kann. Sie gelangt in die Vergessenheit. Die Eignis ist daher in sich zugleich Enteignis. (Die wesenhafte Irre in der Eignis)."

The Brauch is the Wie of the Vereignung; the Enteignis is the Wie of the Eignis's self-withdrawing. The two converge: mortals' Nicht-Genügen for the Brauch is the form in which the Enteignis-character of the Eignis manifests at the Mensch-level. The Vergessenheit of mortals (Seinsvergessenheit) is the Eignis-side structure of the Brauch in its not-genügen-mode. See enteignis.

The Brauch and the Es gibt

The 1973 Beilage zum Vortrag Das Ende der Philosophie: "Die Aufgabe des Denkens und das Es, das gibt. (die brauchende Eignis) »brauchend«: in den Brauch eingelassen."

The cardinal post-1962 formulation: the Es, das gibt is the brauchende Eignis. The Geben (Es gibt Sein, Es gibt Zeit) is itself a Brauch-relation: the Eignis gives by needing the mortals to receive what is given. The Geben is not unilateral generosity (from the Eignis to the mortals); it is mutual constitution in the Brauch.

The implication: the Es gibt-Sprachgebrauch-shift (see es-gibt) is insufficient without the brauchende Eignis-deepening. The Schicken of Sein and the Reichen of Zeit are Brauch-modes, not merely Geben-modes. Mortals are in den Brauch eingelassen — let-into the Brauch. The Eingelassen-Sein is the Wie of being-mortal in the late-Heidegger Sprachgebrauch.

Cross-corpus: Anaximander, χρεών, and the Brauch-bogen

The Greek root of the Brauch-thematic is χρεών (Anaximander) — used by Anaximander in the famous fragment cited via Simplicius: "ἐξ ὧν δὲ ἡ γένεσίς ἐστι τοῖς οὖσι, καὶ τὴν φθορὰν εἰς ταῦτα γίνεσθαι κατὰ τὸ χρεών...". Heidegger reads χρεών in Der Spruch des Anaximander (Holzwege, GA 5) as Brauch — usage, use, need.

The 1962 lecture marginal (17) at "χρεὼ δέ" (Greek, Parmenides Fr. I): "-ich besorge aber -" — Heidegger glosses the Greek χρεών-construction at Parmenides Fr. I as ich besorge (I am concerned with / use / care for). The Brauch-thematic at the 1962 lecture links to the Parmenidean χρεών even though the marginal (17) is a small detail.

Cross-corpus: Was heißt Denken? (1951/52, GA 8) treats Brauchen as the cardinal Verhältnis-figure of Denken; the Spruch des Anaximander-essay (in Holzwege, GA 5) treats χρεών as Brauch; the 1962 lecture and Beilagen treat Brauch as the Wie of the Vereignung. The wiki's Zeit und Sein page records the Brauch-cluster at the lecture-level; the broader Brauch-bogen across the late corpus is not yet fully tracked on the wiki.

What the Concept Does

The Brauch performs four argumentative tasks:

  1. It articulates the Bezug Eignis-Mensch as Verhältnis, not as Aktivität. Neither the Eignis acts on the mortals nor the mortals act on the Eignis; the Brauch is the Verhältnis in which both have their Wesensbau.

  2. It re-grounds the Mensch-Bezug-zum-Sein outside the SuZ-Sorge-frame. SuZ's Sorge is Mensch-side; the Brauch is Eignis-Mensch-Verhältnis-side. The shift is not from one Mensch-existential to another but to a Verhältnis-frame that includes both sides.

  3. It supplies the missing-thematic of the 1962 lecture. The 1973 Beilage flags this explicitly: the lecture tried to zurückstellen the Brauch — unmöglich. The Brauch is what was missing from the 1962 lecture and what completes the Ereignis-articulation.

  4. It connects the Es, das gibt to the brauchende Eignis. The Sprachgebrauch-shift to Es gibt (see es-gibt) is insufficient without the Brauch-deepening. The Geben is itself a Brauch-relation.

What It Rejects

  • The unilateral-Geben reading of the Eignis. The Eignis does not unilaterally give (Sein, Zeit) to passive recipients (mortals). The Geben is itself a Brauch-relation: the Eignis needs the mortals for the Eignis itself.
  • The Mensch-as-active-Empfänger reading. Mortals do not actively receive what is given; they are in den Brauch eingelassen — let-into the Brauch. The Eingelassen-Sein is the proper Mensch-Verhältnis.
  • The SuZ-Sorge as adequate description of the late-Heidegger Mensch-Bezug-zum-Sein. Sorge is Mensch-side; the Brauch is Verhältnis-side. The late-Heidegger Mensch is gebraucht by the Eignis — a structure SuZ-Sorge cannot fully capture.
  • The unilateral-Anruf reading of the Vereignung. The Vereignung is grounded in the Brauch (the Insofern-clause of marginal 11). Mortals are called into their Eigenstes because the Eignis needs them for itself.

Stakes

If the Brauch is the Verhältnis Eignis-Mensch:

  • The Ereignis-Sache is not complete without the Brauch-deepening. The 1962 lecture, by its own admission (1973 Beilage), is unzureichend for trying to zurückstellen the Brauch.
  • The late-Heidegger Mensch is not Subjekt and not Objekt but Gebrauchter. The post-subjectivist Mensch-Bezug-zum-Sein is articulated as Brauch.
  • The Geben is itself a Brauch-relation. Es gibt Sein / Es gibt Zeit must be deepened to die brauchende Eignis gibt Sein und Zeit, indem sie den Sterblichen für sich selbst braucht.
  • The wesenhafte Irre (marginal 9) is the Wie of the Brauch's failure-mode. Mortals can nicht-genügen the Brauch; the Vergessenheit is the form of this Nicht-Genügen.
  • The Greek χρεών (Anaximander, Parmenides) is the Frühe of the Brauch-thematic. The late-Heidegger Brauch takes up the Greek χρεών — convergent with how the Lethe is ereignishaft aufgenommen in the Enteignis.

Problem-Space

The Brauch articulates a recurring philosophical problem: how can the Bezug between the prior open (Eignis, Sein, etc.) and the mortals be articulated without falling into subjectivism, objectivism, or unilateral generosity? The problem appears under different vocabularies:

  • Anaximander — χρεών as the necessity by which beings give themselves to each other.
  • Heraklit — χρεὼν δέ as the Verhältnis-mode in the famous fragments.
  • Christian theology — grace as God's needing humans for the divine plan (Augustinian-Pauline tradition); but the Christian frame ultimately makes grace unilateral.
  • Heidegger SuZ — Sorge as Mensch-side structure; the Bezug zum-Sein is articulated as Existenzialien.
  • Heidegger late corpus — Brauch as Verhältnis-mode. Was heißt Denken? (1951/52), Der Spruch des Anaximander (Holzwege), 1962 lecture marginalia and Beilagen.
  • Late Levinas — responsibility as the cardinal Bezug-mode; the Other uses the I in a quasi-Brauch register.

The problem-space recurs in non-philosophical vocabularies: depth-psychology (Jung's Self needing ego-consciousness for individuation); ecology (the Earth needing humans as caretakers vs. the Anthropocene-Macher-frame). None of these are reducible to the Heideggerian Brauch; they are different ways of approaching the same problem-space.

Connections

  • is the Verhältnis-frame of ereignis — the Eignis's Bewegtheit includes the Brauch as constitutive.
  • is the Wie of the Vereignung — mortals are called into their Eigenstes insofern sie ... gebraucht bleiben (marginal 11 at p. 23).
  • is the Verhältnis-side of enteignis — the Nicht-Genügen of mortals is the Mensch-level manifestation of the Eignis's Enteignis-character.
  • re-grounds the SuZ-Mensch-Bezug-zum-Sein outside the Sorge-frame. See dasein.
  • deepens es-gibt — the Es, das gibt is the brauchende Eignis; the Geben is itself a Brauch-relation.
  • takes up the Greek χρεών of anaximander (if entity created) and parmenides (marginal 17 at Parmenides Fr. I).
  • was foregrounded in heidegger-1951-was-heisst-denken (1951/52) — the Brauch-thematic is central to Was heißt Denken?.
  • is the missing-thematic of the 1962 lecture per the 1973 Beilage zum Vortrag Zeit und Sein.

Open Questions

  • What is the full Brauch-Bogen across the late-Heidegger corpus? The 1962 marginalia and Beilagen are one cluster; Was heißt Denken? (1951/52), Der Spruch des Anaximander (Holzwege), the 1962 lecture, and the unpublished Manuskript ontologische Differenz (GA 73) form a broader bogen. The wiki currently tracks only the 1962-cluster.
  • Is the Eignis braucht den Sterblichen für die Eignis selbst (marginal 11) a quasi-religious formulation? The structure (the Eignis needs the mortals; mortals are called into their ownmost by being needed) has strong Augustinian-Pauline resonances (grace, calling, vocation). Heidegger explicitly refuses the theological frame elsewhere — but the Brauch-formula is strikingly close to the theological Berufung-thematic. The relation Brauch-Berufung-Gnade is not addressed by Heidegger directly.
  • Does the Brauch-deepening complete or replace the Es gibt-formula? The 1973 Beilage flags the Es, das gibt as the brauchende Eignis. Whether the brauchende Eignis-formulation replaces or includes-and-completes the Es gibt-formula is open.
  • What is the relation Brauch-Endlichkeit-des-Ereignisses-selbst? The Protokoll p. 64 names the Endlichkeit des Ereignisses selbst. Is the Brauch (the Eignis needs the mortals) the structural ground of the Endlichkeit (the Eignis is not infinite, not self-sufficient)? Possibly; not directly addressed.

Sources

  • heidegger-1962-zeit-und-sein — Definition at marginals (4) p. 15 ("Brauchen"), (10) p. 23 ("Brauch"), and (11) p. 23 (the Vereignung-Brauch-nexus). The Beilage zum Vortrag (1973) ("den Brauch, zur Eignis gehörend und das Da-sein mitnennend"). The Beilage zum Vortrag Das Ende der Philosophie ("die brauchende Eignis ... in den Brauch eingelassen").
  • Cross-corpus pointers: Was heißt Denken? (1951/52, GA 8); Der Spruch des Anaximander (in Holzwege, GA 5); Anaximander Fr. (Simplicius citation) on χρεών; Parmenides Fr. I on χρεὼν δέ (lecture marginal 17). The unpublished Manuskript ontologische Differenz (GA 73) for the Preisgabe-der-Differenz development that bears on the Brauch.