We may seek out thousands and thousands of trees—but if the self-developing knowledge of the tree as such does not light our way in advance in this enterprise, and does not clearly determine itself on the basis of itself and its essential ground, then all this will remain an idle enterprise in which we cannot see the tree for the trees.

Now one could object, precisely in regard to the universal meaning “Being,” that our representing can no longer rise from it to anything higher, since it is, after all, the most universal meaning. When it comes to the concept that is most universal and highest of all, reference to what stands “under” it is not only advisable, it is the only way out if we want to overcome the emptiness of the concept.

As convincing as this reflection may seem to be, it is nonetheless untrue. Let us mention two reasons:

1. It is questionable, to begin with, whether the universality of Being is that of a genus. Aristotle already suspected this.¹ Consequently, it remains questionable whether an individual being can ever count as an example of Being at all, as this oak does for “tree in general.” It is questionable whether the ways of Being (Being as nature, Being as history) represent “species” of the genus “Being.”

2. The word “Being” is a universal name, it is true, and seemingly one word among others. But this seeming is deceptive. The name and what it names are one of a kind. Therefore, we distort it fundamentally if we try to illustrate it by examples—precisely because every example in this case manifests not too much, as one might say, but always too little.

1. Cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics Γ 1 and K 3.