these are also “nothing more” than mere words and gram ma tical forms making fools of us. As if something were actually decided by deporting “Being” and the “is” to the realm of “mere” linguistic usage; as if we actually did know what a word is, what language is, what linguistic usage is. How little do we know of the essence of language?—As little as we know of the essence of Being.
Yet is it actually settled that we think nothing more in regard to the word “Being”? We must pursue all this the whole way and attempt to bring ourselves closer to what we mean by understanding Being. Perhaps we will then come across something that could become worthy of questioning and that consequently would have to be made problematic in some respect and so should demonstrate the necessity of the question of Being.
Ever since the first session of this course, we have been speaking of the Being of beings—Being, although not a mere word-sound, still a very indeterminate signification. And this latter seems empty, the emptiest and least graspable, and yet again is what “determines” every single being and beings as a whole and as such.
We are gradually becoming unsure and impatient as to whether we will ever find ourselves on a secure path in this domain and come closer to what Being signifies.
§12. Review of the linguistic usage
a) Becoming, the “ought,” thinking, semblance
This irksome question can be dispatched, however, simply by our establishing the word-meaning on the basis of the history and root of the word. We could then invoke what has been established.7 But this procedure is as dangerous as it is simple, for it could be that the root meaning died out long ago, such that what we perhaps now believe we have established about it was actually never in use. Above all, however, we are trying to learn not merely the meaning of a word but, rather, what is signified in the meaning and is given us to understand.
On the other hand, we cannot make do without a glance at language and linguistic expression, especially since we are not taking language itself as something incidental, a mere tool for expressing and communicating already constituted thoughts. Indeed, we are now following a linguistic idiom, one in which we have been moving since long ago. Specifically, we are following it not as regards its etymology but, instead, as regards its conventional meaning-content, i.e., as regards
7. Cf. manuscript: Being. {Presumably in Zum Ereignis-Denken, GA73.}