Heidegger wasn’t a philosopher of science, nor a philosopher of natural science. In Carl Richard von Weizsäcker’s remark, science in Heidegger’s opinion wasn’t “the source nor the objective of his thinking”. In fact, according to Weizsäcker, the point is in mutual misunderstanding. “Until now the science hasn’t understood what Heidegger meant to say to it, while on the other hand, as it seems to me, Heidegger couldn’t thoroughly think the nature science through.” Maybe it would be more to the point (...) to say that it wasn’t just about misunderstanding, but more about Heidegger’s effort to define thinking and science in a radically new approach. The radicalism of his endeavor is, maybe, best shown in his insulting sentence : “Science doesn’t think.” That doesn’t mean only that there’s a gap between thinking and science, but also that this gap is unsurmountable. Thus, the point isn’t in any kind of an objective, but in “establishing the inner structure of science: that in its essence it is to be, on one level, in reference to what philosophy thinks, but in itself is not concerned about what it is supposed to think and forgets about it”. (shrink)

Karl Jaspers écarte l’idée répandue selon laquelle le rapport entre la théologie et la philosophie est opposition entre foi et connaissance ou révélation et raison. L a foi n’est pas irrationnelle. Cette polarité du rationnel et de l’irrationnel ne tendrait qu’à la confusion de l’existence. La foi philosophique, celle de l’homme qui pense, aura toujours pour signe propre une liaison indispensable avec le savoir. L e sens de la science ne peut être lui-même prouvé scientifiquement. Seule la philosophie peut l’éclairer.