is?
December 28th, 2007, search relatedRelated posts :: No related posts
Jud avers:
> *It is.* simply generates the question: *What is?*
In the midst of the current list’s ‘is wars’ (is is a copula, is is a
predicate with or without an implicit complement?, etc) with all the
technico-linguistico-logico apparatuses and associated jargon, one thing
about the brief but perfectly formed sentence “it is” seems to have escaped
all the fuss and nonsense concerning the word “is”: not the (nature of the)
word its self but what/that the word “is” refers to, what calls for the word
to be the word. With this sentence and others like it, e.g., the tree is,
the concentration has been on the it or the tree (and the complement or
object of the copulatic/predicational sentence as in Jud’s “what is?”). If
we go along with Jud and his even more minimal “tree” (or I suppose, “it”),
however tempting the mere adamic utterance of “tree” is it suffers in my
ears (e.g., because the tree may not be at all and then the sentence “tree”
does not say the tree is but, e.g., merely mentions some non-existent,
fancied or absent tree; also if “tree” is meant to signify the presence
{ousia} or presencing of the tree then something like a pointing or
indicating is necessary to accompany the otherwise empty declaration
“tree”).
Whilst it is indeed reasonable for science and common-sense to boo-hoo such
sentences as “it is” (and argue for further information as to the “it” and
what “it” is and whether it be implied or not, etc), such a sentence heard
with philosophical or thinkerly ears does not immediately lead to asking for
further information about this or that but instead turns the antennae
towards the “is”: be-ing. The very ubiquitousness of the tiny word “is” (and
its cognates) and its immediate (although perhaps vague) understanding
(whether the word is present as such or not) — is there any other way to
ask the question “what is is?”? {are each of the “is”s the same?}) means for
me that be-ing is precisely hidden in the disclosive speech about beings
(uttered by science and common-science [sic]); the task of thinking is to
question what has been glimpsed in this appearance of what is hidden by
ubiquitousness; once unearthed a mite by discussing the seemingly
controversial sentence “it is”, we have a battle on our hands: be-ing has
touched us, albeit polemically. And, oh yes, now so has polemos…
just a thought
regards to all who dwell here
michaelP
