________________________________ From: Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 12:43 AM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Picking a few bones with Edmundson's English Major In his clear and cogent response to Edmundson, Lawrence writes, in part > I have more appreciation for some of the other things Edmundson says, > for example his response to Heidegger’s “language speaks man”: “. . . > Not all men, not all women: not by a long shot. Did language speak > Shakespeare? Did language speak Spenser? Milton, Chaucer, Woolf, > Emerson? No, not even close.” I’m not sure where this Heidegger quote > came from, but Heidegger didn’t believe language spoke for all men > either – especially not himself. He made up words to convey what he > believed was his unique “speech,” i.e., philosophy. But in general I > take Edmundson’s meaning. Most people, most likely, have no reason to > be dissatisfied with the limits of language. Creative people like those > he mentions (including Heidegger) never feel constrained by the limits > of language. They get out of it more than the common reader thought was > there – a bit more, perhaps, than Wordsworth’s ‘often thought but ne’er > so well expressed.” Some clarifications: I think that 'language speaks man' is from Heidegger's Poetry, Language, Thought. I have no idea what it means. *Perhaps something similar to 'the limits of our language are the limits of our world' ? Anyway, I don't want to get into Wittgenstein, but I think we can understand what Heidegger meant here, that a person is controlled by the language they speak rather than the other way around. Of course, we don't have to agree, although the idea has some plausibility. O.K. ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html