Heidegger said there’s no machine to measure ”is”. The Anglo-Saxons say he’s just confused about the verb “to be”. But is he? Does language refer to things or not? Why are we describing something “being” if being is trivial. It’s just there, say the Anglos. But, please sir, why?
Replying to @tomxhart
Nietzsche already showed how it's just belief in grammar. The Anglo saying it's all "language games" is only wrong in that he thinks the playful nature of language disproves anything. "Which of us," asks Nietzsche, "which of us here is Oedipus, and which the Sphinx?"
3:18 PM - 7 Jul 2018
0 replies
0 retweets
4 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.