Skip to main content

Heidegger and Language


“Language is the house of being. In its home man dwells. Those who think and those who create with words are the guardians of this home. Their guardianship accomplishes the manifestation of Being insofar as they bring the manifestation of language and maintain it in language through their speech.”

                                                                                                (Heidegger: Letter on Humanism)

Language is the house of being because it is were being is made manifest for it is in language that beings are expressed in such a way that being is thus communicated and therefore understood especially when there is also the presence of the one listening. Beings are the things which we all are immersed and by that we came to know them and not only such we come to understand them by language which speaks to us to make them known. Even in common sense, language is the expression of being wherein being could be made possibly known because it is there we can hear of being and furthermore maybe relate with it. Simply a house is that which shelters and language shelters beings in such a way that is something where beings rest and thus if language is visited beings are there or when language takes place, beings come to be. Or it maybe understood in other terms in relation to the quote above that it is where that specific being namely “man” dwells. Man dwells in language because man uses language and not arbitrarily uses it, but he needs language in order to make communication and understanding possible. Man is thus in this house and is his comfort so as to say because he finds the luxury to be at home, to dwell in this house by just the mere evidence of his inevitable use of language in his daily life. But why man is at this home? As how it goes in Being and Time, man is that one being wherewith all of the other beings are left to futility, that has the capability and the power to which Being can be revealed or made known. Because Heidegger was posing the question whether Being can be known especially that it is the most common thing around and for all we’ve known we are immersed with beings or everything is being. And thus starting from the most common we then derive whether we can possibly know such to the point wherewith in the arrival of the understanding of Being, then we must go through being but the problem is which being then is that which is open to Being? Among all of the other beings, Heidegger says that we start from that being which is closest to us and that is man, or ourselves, wherein the primacy of the question also is in emphasis wherein there is no other being who has the ability to question and that is man per se. Man in relevance to the primacy of asking the question is in use of language in order to render open what is ask. In Heidegger’s own words “. . . questioning builds a way” (Question Concerning Technology), wherein questioning is a quest, a search that we might ultimately find something what we quest for. But again the agent responsible of which is man. Already, in Being and Time, man has already been given that role wherein he is that being wherein he can or might grasp Being because he has the language in order to make it thus happen.

“In its essence, language is not the utterance of an organism; nor is it the expression of a living thing, its symbolic character, perhaps not even in terms of the character of signification. Language is the clearing-concealing advent of Being itself.”

                                                                                                (Heidegger: Letter on Humanism)

Language is the tool or an instrument wherein Being is made manifest. The being which is closest to us uses this language wherein it is even what Being “uses” to where it makes itself known. But as stated above the way we understand commonly language is put to bay here showing that it is not the utterance of what we deem as the spoken language, but language is this clearing-concealing of being. A clearing or a giving lucidity or creating space for something to appear, liken to a clearing of trees in a forest in order for that certain space to be used. But at the same time clearing is to make clear to make something without a doubt as it is, whereas to conceal is to close or to prevent from showing something. But this clearing-concealing is somewhat a paradoxical assimilation of thought wherein Being is somewhat revealing and unrevealing at the same time. Being by language shows itself and at the same time it is hidden because of it. For by language itself creates the way to the understanding or to the revealing of being but at the same time it is also in that field of language that one will get lost into arriving at Being. Because there is no other way wherein we can arrive at being, then the only way is the only way but it is the most probable way also that we might get lost also, because it is the only way. Man is dwelling on language and has been in use of language since he came to be but still he is puzzled whether he arrived at even the understanding of Being per se.

“Language still denies us its essence: that it is the house of truth of Being. Instead, language surrenders itself to our mere willing and trafficking as an instrument of domination over beings. Beings themselves appear as actualities in the interaction of cause and effect.”

                                                                                                (Heidegger: Letter on Humanism)

Although language is the house of being, yet as mentioned earlier it creates a paradoxical dilemma wherein it is the way yet the only way which is probable to getting lost. Language itself denies the access of Being but it is also in language itself the Being is manifesting itself through it and man is the closest of which the understanding of it is will be made manifest. “Being is farther than all beings and is yet nearer to man than every being.” (Letter on Humanism) Though language which is already made available to man to which man’s tool also in the understanding of Being is also put to question whether if there be a method wherein it can be used properly to where Being will be made available to understanding or will finally reveal itself. But is this really so the contention wherein is there a proper usage of language wherewith the coming of Being be made known to man? Yes language is the house of being, and man dwells in it and through it man can come to the understanding of Being, and so too Being is using language wherein it will show itself but at the same time is hidden because of it. We are left at a standstill because we are in between a paradoxical dilemma wherein the only path is a problematic path. Whether in our venture we will remain perpetually lost and will never reach Being or will Being show itself unto us.

“Being is the nearest. Yet the near remains farthest from man. Man at first clings always and only to being. But when thinking represents being as beings it no doubt relates itself to Being.”

                                                      (Heidegger: Letter on Humanism)

Since what is made available to man are beings man first clings to them because it is what is immediate but again Being be the objective here, but even so Being is already at the foothold of being known to man, but it is so near yet so far but even so when man relates with beings, he inevitably relates with Being, but again even though yet Being remains far. Man is thrown to and fro in the quest for Being. Language is the house of being and maybe so also the house of Being. The house of which being (man) is in the utility in order to arrive at his quest whereas also Being is already in language but yet remains hidden because of the nature of language as clearing-concealing. Wherein it clears for a way in order for revealing but at the same time the revealing is hindered because it conceals. Being teases or is man helplessly teasing himself into the arrival of his quest. But still language is the house of being because it is that maybe a tool to where an opening takes place. But too limited at the same time too rich for an opening, but also too rich of possibilities to being misled is language, but has no other option for being man is also in relation of being capable of language and thus being also helplessly in the quest for Being.

The same move is also inherent of, especially in how Heidegger portrays his Question Concerning Technology, wherein quoting from Holderlin that

from where the danger is,
grows also the saving power

that from technology is danger of man but also if there is a “way” wherein the manipulation of technology be of use to where it can be a saving power then it thus be so. Heidegger poses that in a certain entity already bears the opposing sides within, that technology is dangerous but at the same time the saving power. That is why there will come a certain point that technology is Enframing wherein it serves as a danger to man since it will conceal the revelation of Being but it is in that danger wherein Being will slowly unfold itself and thus the Turning occurs, wherein there is the decisive turn wherein as danger it will become a saving power, a path to the revelation of Being, of its unconcealment. Typically, as how I’ve understood Heidegger’s approach on his philosophy is that he leads us to thinking yes and we cannot help but to continue to think because of the paradoxical strategy of his relaying of his thoughts. Thus what Heidegger is calling to is what we call poetics. Wherein from the Greek connotation of “poesis” that is to create is how Heidegger’s method goes, wherein the collision of opposites leads to the creation of thought, a somewhat Hegelian Dialectics wherein opposites tend to meet and thus create a synthesis, an offspring from the collision. Such is the methods of poetry, creation of thoughts and a continuous creation thereof.

            The quest for Being is then this continuous poetry wherein thoughts are always created into just only to understand or to make Being reveal unto man. Language is that only and problematic key wherein the poetics or the surge of endless thoughts come to place in order to fully grasp this Being which hides and shows. Poetry is a creation of meanings especially in making use what is common to it and these are beings, assimilating essences, ideas only to fully grasp what is meant but still language still is insufficient but the beings that are used in a specific poetic schema may mislead someone to the understanding of what is meant or may be that key which open us the way. Being is that which is supposed to be understood, and thus poetry is like in the same manner or it is the manifestation of Being. Because Being is that which is near, it is already inside the poem or the work of poetry but still yet so far, because man is still incapable or is capable but still cannot reach to witness the revelation of Being. The play of language and the essences in poetry is how Being is also in its process of revealing itself. Being is in a poetic movement for it again continuously reveals itself and hides, like how poem functions that already in the language scheme is the opening to the understanding of it but also the language scheme is also the probable factor of not understanding it all.

            Poetry or poetics is one way or is the activity of the revelation of Being wherein Being is thus continuously created in many fashions in many intermediaries of beings that are present only to finally find Being. Language is the key and that problematic key but also the way to Being is poetry due to its continuous creation. Thus Being is this posing aim, wherewith man moves towards it but the movement is a complicated because it is thus Being revealing itself, therefore this philosophy is at one point a transcending of the natural way we look at cause and effect, because Being is revealing making it static but an object of activity of man in his quest for it. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article Review on Elinita Garcia's "Gabriel Marcel: Primary and Secondary Reflection"

Summary:             Gabriel Marcel is a known French existentialist. His co-Frenchman, Jean-Paul Sartre, distinguished existentialism into two which were coined as  atheistic  and  theistic  (Christian) wherein Sartre did mention Marcel as part of the latter in lecture on Existentialism a Humanism . Marcel is a Christian existentialist because he included the divine even amidst the infamous perception of existentialism as godless. Moreover, he is also known for his non-systematic philosophy where he pointed out that the philosophical discipline starts from where one is (referring to the particularity of the situation); therefore, it is not from metaphysical assumptions or already laid down theories.             Marcel’s thoughts talk about the importance and the necessity of reflection wherein he divides it into two as a) primary reflection and b) secondary reflection. Reflection for Marcel is “nothing other than attention, i.e. directed towards this sort of small break

Fin?

  Last 2012, there were hearts on fire that both had their first shared flame in an unlikely place. I was thirsty for love coming from being dormant while she was searching for a redemption from a series of broken hearts. Both struggled to find their place. Both trying to live their lives free from the hideous chains of a dark home. I must admit that I fell for her beauty and add to that, her care. As we both clasped our hands, it was a committed long shot to have the perfect rest for our hearts. It was a bit strange to have an affair under the noses of all that is forbidden both profession and a line of faith. Nothing was wrong as long both were in the ecstasy of love – no malice, no foul play, no trespassing of wills. That moment was a perfect episode in a romantic film – one where young love sprang amidst treacherous circumstances. We lived through the happiness of newfound belongingness and the battle of keeping that alive. 4 years before the wedlock were filled with ups and do

Bertrand Russell and the Sense of Sin

Introduction             Ethics is this study of what is good and what is bad and throughout the course of history it had also its shares of disputes and animosities. But beneath all of it is that ethics is a means in order to arrive at happiness or the good life. Because we have to act correspondingly or in a certain manner wherein we can get to attain harmony within ourselves especially regarding to our conscience or in harmony with others in order to keep relationships or ultimately to preserve one’s self or to attain such security whether externally and that is in relation with others or internally or personal satisfaction. Our actions are guided by principles of which we take actions correspondingly but the question lies what then are these principles and sometimes we go back to our way of understanding or our metaphysical assumptions wherein we garner from these in order to make way into how we conduct ourselves in our actions. In this paper then, I will explicate Bertrand