Monday, April 6, 2009

The Nature? Of Language?

I really enjoyed the start of the first lecture. In order to undergo something we must suffer through it. We must suffer through language coming out a different person than when we went in. I also found it interesting the fact that he references other philosophers in order to make his point stronger. Out of the other people we have read in this class, when the authors bring up other philosophers it is usually in a negative light, and not a positive that helps out their argument, like referring to Gotte and Nietzsche.

One question that JMc and I have after talking about Heidegger is if language is so elusive, could artwork be used to represent the missing part of language? Or would Heidegger say that just adds a whole other level of confusing-ness to language?

1 comment:

  1. I could see this go both ways. It could be the "missing part of language" because it shows, a little more, what can't be said, but there is still a great deal of interpretation, even more so now that there is artwork involved, to be said and in this I could see it become a greater difficulty for language. Also, is there really something "missing" from language or is it something that is essential to what language actually is?