More on: Will to Will as the text on Force and its double manifestation
The relation back and forth of the other categories to the first category, which Aristotle discusses, occurs in λόγος. Accordingly, when we say succinctly that this relation back and forth of the categories to the first is "logical," this means only that this relation is founded in λόγος—in the elucidated sense of the word. We should once and for all steer clear of all the traditional and usual ideas about the "logical" and "logic," assuming that we are thinking of anything definite or truly fundamental with these words "logical" and "logic."
Logos and phusis antidate ousia. Ousia, if we weren't trying to think with Aristotle, we would call ontic being. A being alongside. Along with the others, and subsumed under Parmenides’ Hen or One. Ergo: ta panta, the many. The many beings. Because we are trying to think alongside, as it were, Aristotle, we don’t think ousia like this. Instead, ousia is the answer to the question: how are the “other categories” possible? They must have a ground. And the ground is not some invention, not something born from curiosity, but it is what the essence of man as man must have. It is “this one”—and you point to something.
The saying, to “think alongside Aristotle” is vapid. In fact we don’t know what is happening in such a thinking with “the Greeks”. Is it happening now? Is it from within the Essence of Technicity? Is the thinking itself the same thing as bringing Technicity to a leap, changing the end of Metaphysics? At the same time as we are moved by this diverse collection of concerns to an awareness of the feebleness of all investigation, and the way we are foundered, and utterly lost, might it not still be that something worthwhile is to be had in all this?
The man who withdraws to private life is dead according to the Roman thought, was Cicero dead? Certainly not, by the ordinary standard. The slave is not alive, not participant in the social life, in the speach of politics. Logos is the word from which logic comes. Logos is speech. The human being is the speaking animal. On the essence of the human being, if we follow this, ousia, as the “this one”—and you point, is itself founded on the essence of man! To see, something there, is founded on the essence of man. The answer to the question, How do we know?, is logos. Insofar as one is without logos, one is dead.
What is “this relation is founded in λόγος” saying? The there, as what is under the categories, and so, par example, is higher or lower than something else, always is a matter available to a living human being, and not a dead human being. Something is appearing, or it is let to appear. What lets the appearance appear? The way that speech speaks? This question about the way that speech speaks is prior to ousia, yet, why then is Aristotle building above that which is founded on the life of the human being, on the psuke, the human as such? Now we are wavering in the region, in what the sentence before this points to, that brings us close to Will to Will. Ergo: we answer the question why is Nietzsche “ontic”? The discussion, the thinking, is caught up in the pre-Husserlian region. It was Husserl, the first to tackle the problem of “logic”, who showed the way to the ontological in the way it is thought in the text called Heidegger.
Without thinking it closely we can now suggest that First Philosophy, the Laws of Thought, the logic Husserl shows is not necessary to human beings, human life, as such, come into a place very like the synthetic a priori: the Macht principle of Leibniz is that “synthetic a priori”. Yet, this is insufficient, it must be thought with far-greater nuance. And so, in order to bring out what is unthought in Kant, but thought in the text called Heidegger. Thus letting the path of the thought become μέθοδος. Methodos, letting what appears be time! The path of the thinking, rather than the thinker, moving forward, according to its inner will. This last statement is an attempt to think something that lets the thinking of the leap come to itself. The desuetude of the way towards the leap, according to the string, cadit sub, to fall under the sway of the threat of the maze, of the one who sat in the cave of Zeus, of the palace at Konosos. Nietzsche with the 'deviant' thought.