To modern thinking this type of first principle already unthinkable: we have already seen how labour, life, language has acquired its own historicity and deepened it, and so they have will never be able truthfully to declare their origin, although it seemed indicated within themselves the whole of their history. Now it is not the first principle gives the place of historicity, but the fabric itself historicity reveals a need for principles that would be both an internal and third-party, such as a certain the hypothetical apex of the cone, where all the differences, scattering, all discontinuity compressed into a single point of identity, the the ethereal image of the Identical able, however, to split and turn into Different. Man originated in the early nineteenth century, depending on all these isterichnost, from all those contained in the things themselves, pointing by its location and its own laws on elusive identity of his first principle. But now one relates differently to the first principle. Now people discovers that he constantly finds himself linked with preceding him historicity; it never exists the same principle which is drawn and exposed in time of things. In an effort to define themselves as living being, man discovers his own beginning only in the depth of life that began before him; seeking to understand themselves as laboring creature, he identifies a rudimentary form of labor only within such a human time and space, which already subordinate to society and its institutions; finally, in an effort to define the essence of oneself as a speaking subject the other side of every existing language, he always faces only with the possibilities already unfolding language, and not with the prattle, that Pervakova on the basis of which made possible all languages and all languages as such.
To modern thinking this type of first principle already
ReplyDeleteunthinkable: we have already seen how labour, life, language has acquired its
own historicity and deepened it, and so they have
will never be able truthfully to declare their origin,
although it seemed indicated within themselves the whole of their history.
Now it is not the first principle gives the place of historicity, but the fabric itself
historicity reveals a need for principles that would be
both an internal and third-party, such as a certain
the hypothetical apex of the cone, where all the differences, scattering,
all discontinuity compressed into a single point of identity, the
the ethereal image of the Identical able, however, to split
and turn into Different.
Man originated in the early nineteenth century, depending on all these
isterichnost, from all those contained in the things themselves, pointing
by its location and its own laws on
elusive identity of his first principle. But now
one relates differently to the first principle. Now people
discovers that he constantly finds himself linked with
preceding him historicity; it never exists
the same principle which is drawn and
exposed in time of things. In an effort to define themselves as
living being, man discovers his own beginning
only in the depth of life that began before him; seeking to understand
themselves as laboring creature, he identifies a rudimentary form of labor
only within such a human time and space, which
already subordinate to society and its institutions; finally, in an effort
to define the essence of oneself as a speaking subject
the other side of every existing language, he always faces
only with the possibilities already unfolding language, and not with the
prattle, that Pervakova on the basis of which made possible all
languages and all languages as such.