Posted in Abstract?, Unquantified fragments of numbers

. . . δηλον γαρ ως υ μ εις μ εν ταυτα ( τι ποτε βουλεσθε ση μ αινειν οποταν ον φθεγγησθε ) παλαι γιγνωσκετε , η μ εις δε προ του μ εν ωο μ εθα , νυν δ ’ ηπορηκα μ εν . . .

“For evidently you have long been familiar with what you really mean
when you say of something that it ‘is’; we however thought we under-
stood it but now find ourselves perplexed.”
The necessity of an explicit repetition of the question of being
This question has today fallen into oblivion, even though our age
considers itself progressive in that it once again affirms “metaphysics.”
But then it also considers itself exempt from the exertions required to
kindle anew any γιγαντομαχια περι της ουσιας.
Yet the question here touched upon is not just one among others. It kept the inquiries of Plato
and Aristotle in an aura of suspense, only to subside from then on into
silence as a thematic question of actual investigation. What those two
achieved held up, throughout manifold displacements and “retouchings,”
on into Hegel’s Logic. And what at one time was wrested from the
phenomena with the utmost effort of thought, although fragmentary and
roughly incipient, has long since become trivialized.
Martin Heidegger
Being and Time
An Annotation:
Advertisements

Author:

"If he's honest, he'll steal; if he's human, he'll murder; if he's faithful, he'll deceive. Being at a loss to resolve these questions, I am resolved to leave them without any resolution." I have so much to say to you that I am afraid I shall tell you nothing."

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s