insisted that questions properly pertaining to beings cannot be simply transferred to the being of beings.
What justification is there, however, for appealing to the completely different character of being in comparison with beings? This presupposes that we already know about the different and particular nature of being, i.e. that we know the latter's essence. Do we indeed know this? Or do we make this appeal on the basis of an obscure intimation that 'being' and 'is' and 'was' are not like the things of which we can say that they are or were. Can we know, can we want to know, something of the essence of being, if at the same time we bar the way to its interrogation? Clearly not. Therefore we must ask about what being means. And even if the question of what we understand by being is linguistically similar to the question concerning our understanding of this being – table – it does not follow that questioning and understanding has the same character in both cases. What emerges from all this is just that the question concerning being cloaks itself in, and must cloak itself in, the same outward form as the question concerning beings. The question concerning being is hidden behind a form which is alien to it, and will remain unrecognizable for whoever is used to asking only about beings. So we must follow the philosophical path, the path which is remote from ordinary understanding, or better, we must try to follow this path. At any event, the necessity of the question remains, namely this question concerning the meaning of the fundamental word of Greek philosophy, οὐσία. If this word is not just sound and fumes, but was able to challenge the genius of Plato, what does it mean?
Οὐσία τοῦ ὄντος means in translation: the beingness of beings [Seiendheit des Seienden] . We say, on the other hand: the being of beings [Sein des Seienden]. 'Beingness' is a very unusual and artificial linguistic form that occurs only in the sphere of philosophical reflection. We cannot say this, however, of the corresponding Greek word. οὐσία is not an artificial expression which first occurs in philosophy, but belongs to the everyday language and speech of the Greeks. Philosophy took up the word from its pre-philosophical usage. If this could happen so easily, and with no artificiality, then we must conclude that the pre-philosophical language of the Greeks was already philosophical. This is actually the case. The history of the basic word of Greek philosophy is an exemplary demonstration of the fact that the Greek language is philosophical, i.e. not that Greek is loaded with philosophical terminology, but that it philosophizes in its basic structure and formation. The same applies to every genuine language, in different degrees to be sure. The extent to which this is so
[49-50]