Page 79 [79]
whether or not they fled, because they were not human. This was
proven by them having a number and not a name. It was there on
their arms, on the side of the railway carriage, and on the lists.
However, there are examples of times that communication made
it possible to dissolve the problem of namelessness even in this
situation, because communication returns names to people. This
is because we always communicate with someone. And through
communication, the thing which enables us to hate is lost.
The slightest chance of communication creates the opportunity
for cooperation, which is henceforth important, although the
opportunity is constantly there: in principle, in any case. The
freedom of the group is limited by its nature. If I define freedom
the way the average person does, that is, if freedom for me is “I can
do what I want and when I want,” I fail to understand anything
about either freedom or my own life. For if it were true, if I were
absolutely free in this way, I would become a quasi-god, but at the
same time I would deny the freedom of everyone else, or at least
restrict it, which would permanently endanger the existence of
freedom. For if Ican do what I want when I want, no one else can
do what they want, either now or ever, at least not if it conflicts
with my will. There is no point in talking about freedom after that.
Schelling describes it very precisely: “in struggle, freedom always”
becomes real. It is always born in struggle. Freedom, then, in the
Schellingian or Hegelian conception, is not an acquired and eternal
gift, nor is it a “forbidden fruit” that we steal a taste of; freedom
is what one wins for oneself through struggle*> And not necessarily
by destroying the other.
35 When I was translating Philosophische Untersuchungen über das Wesen der
menschlichen Freiheit (1809), I saw that this small book which had such an
enormous influence on Heidegger is also hugely beneficial to people today.