why, there are not simply two whys together in formal conjunction, which conjunction could then be reiterated in a correspondingly formal way. Rather, the why that questions, i.e., the first why that asks about the second why, is grounded as such in what is inquired about, i.e., in the why it puts into question. Thus, in the end, it is the questioning why that is to be defined, and that definition is nothing other than the essence of the why brought into question.
In generally clarifying the essence of ground as such, we have brought out two regions of problems: 1) clarification of the origin of the plurality of grounds, the forms of ground, i.e., the bestrewal of ground; 2) interpretation of the essential recoiling of ground back into one ground (thrownness in itself). This recoiling of ground, i .e., this turning round of Dasein, is a question connected in the closest way with the first question, as is shown by the "circle" of the understanding (cf. Being and Time). We cannot go into both groups of problems any further here. We are moreover attempting to clarify the essence of ground with one further step, so as to arrive at the goal of our course, which is insight into logic as the metaphysics of truth.
The primal phenomenon of ground is the for-the-sake-of, which belongs to transcendence. Maintaining itself in the for-the-sake-of and binding itself with it, freedom is freedom toward ground. Being-free, however, is understanding oneself out of possibility. It was said already, in the analysis of the concept of world, that there is, in the phenomenon of world, what we called an "overstepping." Freedom as the ecstatic being-toward-possibilities is thus, in itself, a swinging-over into possibilities. Insofar then as freedom (taken transcendentally) constitutes the essence of Dasein, Dasein, as existing, is always, in essence, necessarily "further" than any given factical being. On the basis of this upswing, Dasein is, in each case, beyond beings, as we say, but it is beyond in such a way that it, first of all, experiences beings in their resistance, against which transcending Dasein is powerless. The powerlessness is metaphysical, i.e., to be understood as essential; it cannot be removed by reference to the conquest of nature, to technology, which rages about in the "world" today like an unshackled beast; for this domination of nature is the real proof for the metaphysical powerlessness of Dasein, which can only attain freedom in its history.
N.B. To be sure, the natural and human sciences are not two different groups of sciences which differ in their development of concepts and methods of proof or differ in that the one occupies itself with sulphuric acid and the other with poems. Instead, they