Definitions (always just getting under way).
1.Defintion: That which points or sees into the concrete good of some matter. Someone who knows what the being properly is has the definition.
Comment: The assumption that definitions are consubjective and extrospective corresponds to the possibility of intersubjectivity or communication and introspection.
Examples: This sentence is a sentence and it says or tells us something. This kind of definition attempts to capture what everyone knows already. In other words, to say what is the good or solid significance of statements, propositions or sentences. That they say, or tell, or perhaps “show” something. That they tell us something is what gives them a bearing on human life. Magritte’s painting with the words "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" is a painting.
Comment: The issue of specific diferentia which is still the Kantian sense of the analytic definition implies a non-conventional understanding of definition. The Anglo-American Kant (Quine is an exemplar of it) regards substance as a grammatical feature. The Kantian philosophy regards substance as a causal feature. With us substance is thought Phenomenologically (neither in a logical/conventional manner nor a psychological/factical manner). Like Aristotle we don’t suppose that it is meaningful to deny that all things have a ”good,” or to limit “value” or “ought” to the products of human making, but, unlike Aristotle we don’t assume that the “good” of stone, of roots, of small shrewd animals, or of Justice and Beauty, is once discovered final. Behind the good must then be thought the Holy. The rational will and the passions are not thought as projecting themselves into objects but thought and the definition are part of the beings.
2.Dasein: Beings are undeceptively or straightforwardly available. The frames of common sense (thought in the Aristotelian way as endoxa, the Christian way as “general opinion” in contradistinction to knowledge, or in the biological manner as traits beneficial to survival of the species, or in some psychological/psychoanalytic manner or in the manner of Descartes and Thomas Paine, or in the scientific-Democratic sense) and of naturwissenschaft (this which aims at extrospective result or success defined against the value or ought content) cannot correct the availability (disponibilité [it is important to note we do not read this as said against Aristotelean “clock time” as does Derrida, but rather as referring to the availability of ousia or being in Aristotle as what is (‘is is available’)], parousia). Availability is itself available as is the “I” for what availability or presence is present. Heidegger is not taken as a demonstration that availability is one “beginning” among (moglich) others.
3.Philosophy: What appears first among the Greeks. Especially with the discussions between the Meletians and the Athenians and the Eleatics. The name Caesar can be used to name a leader with no connection by pedigree to the Roman context. So too the name Philosophy can become, and has, a mere generic which denies the reality of the pedigree in its real existence. Though, the pedigree can not be thought here only by the frame of an imposed measure of clock time, since in being a definition it refers back to the good use which belongs to extrospective thinking of the beings (ergo, not to an abstract notion of a brain as in the “useful” (that is on the “subjective” notion that health is “useful”) medical work of the neurobiological field). In this sense Leibnitz' saying that thinking would not be found in the brain no matter how close one looks says now that thinking is found in the brain understood as sites of concrete goods. Of the neurons and such-like understood by extrospective self-identity. In this sense self-identity and ready-to-hand in Heidegger are alike (both are available or being the “is”). The mystery of the contrast between the god, ratio or reason (rationality), and the fateful power, pathos or the passions (“emotions” in the modern vernacular jargon) defines philosophy among the available beings. Availability is like the Holy being that in which the good is available. The Holy is a mere "verbal formula" and a "fallacy" from the point of view of formal logic. It can not be defined so far as it has no “good”, but it can be signaled Phenomenologically through the “is”.