世界哲坛上从上一世纪初开演直到今天仍未收场的一场大戏就是由一种非哲学的文化和政治力量将海德格尔推上了大师的宝座，然后他在那个宝座上最终完成了这种非哲学力量运作下的必然的逻辑宿命：宣判哲学终止了。
在这场世纪闹剧中，海德格尔先是由于各种原因被戴上了“很厉害，他的文章很重要但又很难懂”的大师的光环，然后后来的人(不论是所谓的学术专家还是普通粉丝们)就跟着上演了一场“皇帝确实穿了美丽的新衣”的闹剧。
要想认清海德格尔哲学的错误面目就不能象很多人那样隔着海德格尔头上的光环雾里看花似地从各种哲评中来砸吧海德格尔多厉害的传奇，而是要进到他的文章的字里行间去揭穿这场闹剧中种种虚幻。本文先以一例向有兴趣的朋友揭示海德格尔的混乱逻辑，以后有时间的话还会陆续再提供更多的例子。
本文所用的海德格尔的原话引自Joan
Stambaugh 翻译的海德格尔的题为《On Time and Being》的讲稿（http://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/sussexphenomenology/files/2013/05/Martin-Heidegger-Joan-Stambaugh-Translator-On-Time-and-Being-1977.pdf），由于不同语言之间的翻译常受语言环境的影响，哲学翻译对此尤为敏感，所以读者在读本文时应以对语义的领会为主，而将本文中文翻译措辞仅作参考。
在这场世纪闹剧中，海德格尔先是由于各种原因被戴上了“很厉害，他的文章很重要但又很难懂”的大师的光环，然后后来的人(不论是所谓的学术专家还是普通粉丝们)就跟着上演了一场“皇帝确实穿了美丽的新衣”的闹剧。
要想认清海德格尔哲学的错误面目就不能象很多人那样隔着海德格尔头上的光环雾里看花似地从各种哲评中来砸吧海德格尔多厉害的传奇，而是要进到他的文章的字里行间去揭穿这场闹剧中种种虚幻。本文先以一例向有兴趣的朋友揭示海德格尔的混乱逻辑，以后有时间的话还会陆续再提供更多的例子。
本文所用的海德格尔的原话引自Joan
Stambaugh 翻译的海德格尔的题为《On Time and Being》的讲稿（http://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/sussexphenomenology/files/2013/05/Martin-Heidegger-Joan-Stambaugh-Translator-On-Time-and-Being-1977.pdf），由于不同语言之间的翻译常受语言环境的影响，哲学翻译对此尤为敏感，所以读者在读本文时应以对语义的领会为主，而将本文中文翻译措辞仅作参考。
海德格尔关于时间是四维的论证：
中文译文：
时空通常被理解为在两点间所测得的距离意义上进行计算的结果。在这个计算里，时间被表示为一条线加上参数因而时间的一维性便通过数字的度量表达了出来。时间的这种被思考为当下的连续序列的维度性，是从三维空间的表达中借用过来的。
但是在有关时间的计算之前且独立于这样的计算，与真时间的时空相关的是由将来，过去和现在彼此交互穿插和开放而构成的。相应地，我们以一种易为误解的方式称之为维度的实际上属于真时间而且只属于真时间。维度由打开的穿透构成，在这种穿透中，未来的到来成就了已经发生的，已经发生的带来了未来，而且两者间的这种相互的关系造成了双方的开放性。根据这样的三重给与的思维，真时间证明是三维的。我们再重复一遍，维度在这里不仅是被考虑为可以度量的领域，而更是一种穿插，一种给与和开放。只有后者才使我们能够表达和限定一个可度量的领域。
但什么是决定真时间的三个维度的统一的根源，也就是依据各自的存在来给与的三种相互作用的方式的统一的的根源呢？我们都听过这样的说法： 万物消失在到来之中；即便是当下本身也总是上演着来临与产生，也就是某种向存在的转化。我们无法将这样思考出来的存在归于时间的三个维度中的任何一个，或好像很显然地归于当下。相反地，时间的三个维度的统一是由彼此之间两两相互作用构成的。这种相互作用已证明是真正的延展，对于时间的意义来说起着核心作用，可以权且称作第四维---不仅仅是为表达方便而权且言之，而是事实的本质。
真时间是四维的。
-------
以上的中文翻译是基于下面的英文翻译：
Time-space as commonly understood, in the sense of the distance measured between two time-points, is the result of time calculation. In this calculation, time represented as a line and parameter and thus one-dimensional is measured out in terms of numbers. The dimensionality of time, thought as the succession of the sequence of nows, is borrowed from the representation of three-dimensional space.
But prior to all calculation of time and independent of such calculation, what is germane to
the time-space of true time consists in the mutual reaching out and opening up
of future, past and present. Accordingly, what we call dimension and
dimensionality in a way easily misconstrued, belongs to true time and to it
alone. Dimension-ality consists in a reaching out that opens up, in which
futural approaching brings about what has been, what has been brings about
futural approaching, and the reciprocal relation of both brings about the
opening up of openness. Thought in terms of this threefold giving, true time proves
to be three-dimensional. Dimension, we repeat, is here thought not only as the
area of possible measurement, but rather as reaching throughout, as giving and
opening up. Only the latter enables us to represent and delimit an area
of measurement.
But from what source is the unity of the three dimensions
of true time determined, the unity, that is, of its three interplaying ways of
giving, each in virtue of its own presencing? We already heard: In the
approaching of what is no longer; present and even in the present itself,
there always plays a kind of approach and bringing about, that is, a kind of
presencing. We cannot attribute the presencing to be thus thought to one of
the three dimensions of time, to the present, which would seem
obvious. Rather, the unity of time's three dimensions consists in the
interplay of each toward each. This interplay proves to be the true extending,
playing in the very heart of time, the fourth dimension, so to speak-not
only so to speak, but in the nature of the matter.
True time is four-dimensional.
But prior to all calculation of time and independent of such calculation, what is germane to
the time-space of true time consists in the mutual reaching out and opening up
of future, past and present. Accordingly, what we call dimension and
dimensionality in a way easily misconstrued, belongs to true time and to it
alone. Dimension-ality consists in a reaching out that opens up, in which
futural approaching brings about what has been, what has been brings about
futural approaching, and the reciprocal relation of both brings about the
opening up of openness. Thought in terms of this threefold giving, true time proves
to be three-dimensional. Dimension, we repeat, is here thought not only as the
area of possible measurement, but rather as reaching throughout, as giving and
opening up. Only the latter enables us to represent and delimit an area
of measurement.
But from what source is the unity of the three dimensions
of true time determined, the unity, that is, of its three interplaying ways of
giving, each in virtue of its own presencing? We already heard: In the
approaching of what is no longer; present and even in the present itself,
there always plays a kind of approach and bringing about, that is, a kind of
presencing. We cannot attribute the presencing to be thus thought to one of
the three dimensions of time, to the present, which would seem
obvious. Rather, the unity of time's three dimensions consists in the
interplay of each toward each. This interplay proves to be the true extending,
playing in the very heart of time, the fourth dimension, so to speak-not
only so to speak, but in the nature of the matter.
True time is four-dimensional.
