이 글의 목적은 하이데거의 셸링 강의록에 나타난 ‘ist’ 해석의문제점을 형용적 서술 층위, 동일성 층위, 근거 관계 층위라는 세 가지 층위에서 검토하는 데 있다. 하이데거는 첫 번째 층위에서 계사의 보조 형용사기능과 동일성 정립 기능을 뒤섞고, 두 번째 층위에서 ‘이다－글월’이 뜻할수 있는 동일성의 여러 차원들을 뒤섞으며, 세 번째 층위에서 계사의 근거관계를 무리하게 끌어들인다. 하이데거의 주장은, 한 마디로 말해, 생각하기차원에서 이야기된 ‘이다－글월’이 그것에 대한 변증법적 사유를 거쳐 실재차원을 제시하는 ‘있다－글월’로 바뀔 수 있다는 것이지만, 그의 주장은 타당성이 그다지 많지 않다. 그 이유는 크게 다음 세 가지이다. 첫째, “사람은 자유롭다(Man ist frei).”와 같은 형용적 서술문은 “사람은 자유로운 것이다(Man ist das, was ist frei).”와 같은 계사 문장이 아니다. 자유로움은 사람의 속성을 뜻하지만, ‘자유로운 것’은 사람이 속할 범주를 나타낸다. 하이데거는 이 둘을 혼동했다. 둘째, “A=A”와 같은 등식은 “산은산이다.”와 같은 계사 문장이 아니고, “좋은 것은 악한 것이다.”라는 ‘이다－글월’은 ‘좋은 것’의 있음을 제시하지도, 나아가 ‘좋은 것’이 ‘악한 것’을 ‘가능케 한다’는 것을 뜻하지도 않는다. 이러한 해석들은 하이데거의 특정한 전제들에 의존해 있는데, 그 전제들 자체가 의문스럽다. 셋째, “주어는 술어이다(Subjekt ist Prädikat).”와 같은 계사 문장이 비록 주어와 술어의 같으면서 다르고 다르면서 같음의 관계를 나타내는 것으로 해석될 수 있을지라도, 이러한 해석이 모든 계사 문장에 타당하기는커녕 계사 문장들에 의해 거부되기도 한다. 즉 그의 해석에는 무리가 따른다. 나는 이 논문에서 하이데거가 제시했던 11개 이상의 보기글을 분석했다. 거기에 쓰인 독일 말 “ist”는 그 꼴은 같지만, 그 뜻하는 바는 여러 차원으로 나뉜다. 그의 주장의 공통점은 계사 “ist”가 존재사 ‘잇음(Seyn)’에 속한다고 본점이다. 하이데거가 계사의 뜻들을 여러 층위에서 다양하게 해석하려 했던 까닭은 그가 그로써 ‘있음의 문제(Seinsfrage)’를 보다 온전히 묻고, 따라서 그에 대한 보다 온전한 대답을 얻을 수 있을 것이라고 생각했기 때문이었다. 하지만 계사의 기능과 종류 그리고 뜻매김에 대한 그의 해석들은 그릇되었다.

This paper reviews and points out the problem the way in which the term ‘ist’ is interpreted in Heidegger’s lectures on Shelling and examines it from the three aspects: an epithetic, identifying and causal relation scale, respectively. Heidegger, in his attempts to interpret copula, does not classify and mixes copula’s functions of assistant adjective and of establishing sameness at the first level. At the second level, he also mixes several dimensions of identity that the term “be-sentence(이다－글월)” can carry, then drawing forcedly copula’s causal relation into it at the third level. That is, Heidegger insists that,through the dialectic thinking, ‘be-sentence(이다－글월)’ uttered in the thinking process can be shifted into ‘exist-sentence(있다－글월)’ suggesting the dimension of existence. However, his argument is somewhat invalid for the following three reasons. First, an epithetic declarative sentence such as “Man is free(Man ist frei).” is not a copula sentence. While ‘free’ refers to a kind of human attributes, ‘being free’ is a category for human to belong to. The problem is, Heidegger mixed up these two. Second, an equation such as “A=A” is not a copula sentence such as “the mountain is the mountain.”In addition, “be-sentence(이다－글월)” structure in the sentence of “the good one is the bad one.” doesn’t suggest the existence of ‘the good’ nor does it mean ‘the good’ ‘enables’‘the bad’ to be. Such interpretations are based on the Heidegger’s certain premises, all of which are questionable. Third, though a copula sentence such as “A subject is a predicate(Subjekt ist Prädikat).” can be shown to reflect the relationship between a subject and a predicate, both of which are similar but different at the same time, and vice versa. Such an interpretation cannot always be applied in all copula sentences and is sometimes even refused by some copula sentences. In other words, his interpretation could be inappropriate. Here in this paper, I analyze more than eleven examples suggested by Heidegger. A German word ‘ist’ used in those examples has a same form but its meaning differs and can be divided into several scales. The common ground of Heidegger’s insistences is that he considers the copula ‘ist’ as what belongs to an “Seyn”, which means “being” in English. Heidegger tried to interpret the meaning of copula as diversely as possible from various aspects, as he thought that he could set up the good questions on “being” (Seinsfrage)through the attempts, thus getting a near-perfect answer on it. However, I would like to point out his attempts to interpret the functions, types and meanings of copula are incorrect.

This paper reviews and points out the problem the way in which the term ‘ist’ is interpreted in Heidegger’s lectures on Shelling and examines it from the three aspects: an epithetic, identifying and causal relation scale, respectively. Heidegger, in his attempts to interpret copula, does not classify and mixes copula’s functions of assistant adjective and of establishing sameness at the first level. At the second level, he also mixes several dimensions of identity that the term “be-sentence(이다－글월)” can carry, then drawing forcedly copula’s causal relation into it at the third level. That is, Heidegger insists that,through the dialectic thinking, ‘be-sentence(이다－글월)’ uttered in the thinking process can be shifted into ‘exist-sentence(있다－글월)’ suggesting the dimension of existence. However, his argument is somewhat invalid for the following three reasons. First, an epithetic declarative sentence such as “Man is free(Man ist frei).” is not a copula sentence. While ‘free’ refers to a kind of human attributes, ‘being free’ is a category for human to belong to. The problem is, Heidegger mixed up these two. Second, an equation such as “A=A” is not a copula sentence such as “the mountain is the mountain.”In addition, “be-sentence(이다－글월)” structure in the sentence of “the good one is the bad one.” doesn’t suggest the existence of ‘the good’ nor does it mean ‘the good’ ‘enables’‘the bad’ to be. Such interpretations are based on the Heidegger’s certain premises, all of which are questionable. Third, though a copula sentence such as “A subject is a predicate(Subjekt ist Prädikat).” can be shown to reflect the relationship between a subject and a predicate, both of which are similar but different at the same time, and vice versa. Such an interpretation cannot always be applied in all copula sentences and is sometimes even refused by some copula sentences. In other words, his interpretation could be inappropriate. Here in this paper, I analyze more than eleven examples suggested by Heidegger. A German word ‘ist’ used in those examples has a same form but its meaning differs and can be divided into several scales. The common ground of Heidegger’s insistences is that he considers the copula ‘ist’ as what belongs to an “Seyn”, which means “being” in English. Heidegger tried to interpret the meaning of copula as diversely as possible from various aspects, as he thought that he could set up the good questions on “being” (Seinsfrage)through the attempts, thus getting a near-perfect answer on it. However, I would like to point out his attempts to interpret the functions, types and meanings of copula are incorrect.

copula, be(이다), combination of subject and predicate, sameness, identity