Will to Will vis–à–vis Language
Yet earlier, in our interpretation of Aristotle's second sentence in the above passage, we said that the categories have their home in λόγος. But λόγος, assertion, is assertion about beings, not the beings themselves. So we have a dual claim: the categories belong to λόγος, and the categories are the beings themselves. How do these go together? We do not have the answer. From now on let us remember that the question of the essence of the categories leads into obscurity.
second sentence: The other beings are said with regard to what is said when saying οὐσία, the how much as well as the how constituted and the others that are said in this manner; for everything that is must in and of itself have the saying of οὐσία, as stated in the previous discussion.
To say “this is a teacher” is a clear and distinct categorization, a gesture accompanies what is said, the fact is perpetually and constantly established by the, so-called, accusation. The laws of thought demand that a Teacher be understood vis–à–vis a connection to what belongs together, what is gathered in the accusation is a kind of logic. A teacher and not a student, a teacher that at the feet of which must sit students. Something is opened in the horizon of the Laws of Thought. An area of reality in which ousia moves. The problem, as over and against the question, is an object of such logic. The logos, since Husserl, in its independent Power, is not nailed to the cross of the logic. At least in the sense of what is correctly understood, we now see Category as more Philosophical, in the sense of the tradition, than is logos. At the same time the tension of the Erotic movement, of the development of the Geschick, is inferred back into the orginary logos. The History of Being is meant.
Someone uses the category, or categorizing, in the style of a non-muthos, a “logical” fixation of the positioning of something as something amidst the world known to nous. Logos, speech, as speech, not as the rational, is prior to muthos. But on the other hand, language is not simply identical to speech or writing. This should be kept in mind. A Lichtung, lighting, as the “intentionality”, is an Erotic process, it presupposes the logos as wisdom, as ultimate intelligence or sophos. The sophos which is concerned with the right way of doing things. The possibility of ad hominem address, of the way what is intelligible can come before the man, and in its diffuse or irrational shattered look, move the opinion to transformation, belongs to the logos of Eros. But the Eros itself, when thought as Will to Will, is perspectival. Its sun is only the one it happens to see, in the same sense as that some ancient animals who were infinitely excited by the proximity to heat, to the living body, were quite indifferent to the crackling of lightning in its thunder. The Socratic theoria, theoria is synonymous with guidance or orientation, is brought closer to the sensing of the questioning that holds that Thinking is not yet happening. Questioning is then correctly said not to be a matter of a problem. It is not that learning which is a movement of the opinion towards the true sun.
The teacher as the one there, and you point, is the correct truth, but what appears before one, when the one is taken back into the thinking, so the one (the subject), and the something as something, the teacher seen, who is held to be a teacher by the guiding or orienting of man as man, as the historial truth, as what always is seen in the incredible impossibility, that of holding to one view, all come to the orginary logos. But we as yet remain in obscurity.
Various Remarks of an Exploitative Character
The radical Freedom envisioned by the Greeks, the opening of the highest good, is today, in the universities, called 'anti-democratic'. The absurdity of such ill-informed talk, however, is of no arbitrary origin, nor does it speak, in essence, incorrectly. What changes in the Historial, is Dasein, so that nothing remains in the energia, in the fire, but the simple lighting. Dasein that seeks wisdom, that seeks the right way of doing things, looks at the eidos within, then at the potentia ordinata, then to disolution of all "ways of doing things". Insofar as a definitive possibility ceases to obtain for the Will to Will, Dasein itself wavers like the blooming of explosives in the wind. Da-sein prepairs to step aside in the Thinking, but it as yet does not venture to learn Thinking without Da-sein. However, Husserl says, one can only watch the movement of the Phenomena. Husserl is like a giant walking along the infinite distance between two stars, and never showing any sign of peevishness in the face of the forsaken waste, but the text called Heidegger is synonomous with a silver crown hanging on a throne, which as though in supreme consternation flickers, its comprehension the play of light along the calm surface of the pool of Diana at Nemi.
Whereas ancient or Biblical Hebrew speaks of before and after it lacks the present tense of the “is”. This is true, formally, of the Modern Hebrew, but in essence the Modern Hebrew language is thought in a diverse manner, but whatever its essence, it is not of what was held in being from that time. Ergo, the Dasein of the Ancient Hebrew no longer exists. If this is true, the Language is not what is spoken, or written, but in the eidos, or opinion, that ultimately guides man as man. The “is” that corresponds to the Western nous, is not the word, but the nous that first raises its head at the gate of Athens is what is thought by the Dasein of the ancient Greek according to what comes forward in the lighting, in what stand before as what flows in, issuing from the Early Greeks, prior to philosophy as such, in Parmenides it comes to its categorization.
In this we turn from the subject as the one who the something as something appears to, to the something in the way it resounds as the something. To the circle itself. The eidos, as the opinion that Justice is to return what is owed, can always be moved, so that it is no longer what justice is, except in mere talk. Mere talk, the abstraction, along with reflection, is not the being of a being that is categorized as ousia by Aristotle. As late as Aristotle, and not earlier.