When trying to unpack the nature of language we run into many problems. One such problem is that in trying to understand language we have to appeal to language. We have to use language when trying to understand language, which is tricky. Heidegger writes that we need to experience, or rather have an experience with language. "To undergo an experience with something means that this something, which we reach along the way in order to attain it, itself pertains to us, meets and makes its appeal to us, in that it transforms us into itself" (pg 73-74). After reading the first two lectures I found it interesting how our unpacking of language is itself a type of journey. In this light it seems almost poetic the task at hand Heidegger presents.
In regards to Aaron and JMC's question about art and language I feel that art is insufficient. I think this because as I see it, language is a prerequisite to art, we need some sort of understanding of language to view art. I do not know how we could represent a missing part of language without some prior sense of what we missing. In that case we are not really missing it, or at least I think.
Why yes, it has been years
1 year ago