Let’s see what another old man’s answer is in his What is Philosophy? book
Being is what is presupposed in language (in the name that manifests it), it is that on whose presupposition we say what we say. The presupposition therefore expresses the original relation between language and being, between names and things, and the first presupposition is that there is such a relation.
Words talk about being. That’s a dangerous idea. People don’t like certain words that remind them that being is a certain way. What do you think of first when I say these words? Is it something you want to admit in public?
That’s a scary thought isn’t it, that words reflect reality? Words speak of real things. Very scary.
You don’t think you deserve to take a walk of shame like Cersei Lannister though do you?
There’s no word that applies to a reality about you that would warrant that.
The entity as entity (ὂν ᾗ ὄν) and the entity insofar as it is said to be an entity are inseparable.
You’re a perfectly virtuous human being, there’s no word you can think of that applies to the reality of you that conflicts with that.
If I looked at you and said your name you’d think “That’s ME!”
Same applies if I looked at you and said other words.
Those don’t exist though do they? Certainly no negative ones.
It’s 64° Fahrenheit outside where I am right now. There are high levels of cowardice and timidity in the west.
“You’re a broken thermometer.”
Let’s have breakfast before we get into all this
A person is, almost by definition, an unbroken thermometer. Even the lowest creatures of humanity. It’s a question of what their words focus on. It’s not that their words don’t reflect reality. Being itself and their words are intrinsically connected. What they often do though is use their words to hide other sides of being. They magnify one side of being in order to make invisible another side.
Even the “click” language they use in Africa is intrinsically connected to being. Oftentimes words aren’t used for political reasons to magnify a certain side of being, rather they’re simply used to focus on a trivial side of being. This is chatter. People wouldn’t chatter if it didn’t reflect reality somehow what they were conveying. Words typically aren’t used to magnify the more important sides of being.
I think a full-fledged walk of shame would do the chatterboxes good. Though who am I, a broken thermometer, to say?
The important sides of being might not be for our time
being destines itself and unveils itself for speakers in an epochal history
A good deal of words spoken arise from pity. Our contemporary cacophony centers around the positive reinforcement of the children of humanity. Words do not tend to be spoken that reflect the side of being pertaining to an adult that is more adult than any adult of humanity. The children need nurturing, is the consensus. Using these kinds of words is my way of nurturing you.
How to make nature adapt culture so that we more quickly use technology for the purpose of everyone being able to understand the Upper World?
language is neither a human invention nor a divine gift, but a middle term between them, which is located in a zone of indifference between nature and culture
The project I postulate is the ostensible project of the left already. Is their objective being met? They want everyone to be recognized as people. What are they doing to bring that about? They have their own understanding of “understanding the Upper World”. What is their ideal person they want everyone to be recognized as? IS that the ideal person? I think it’s far from it. What words do you use to bring about the ideal person? Do they actually do that? Or do you just follow the trend of the day without having that in mind at all?