The Full Meaning Of A Language Is

Lichtenberg ... Held Something Of The Following Kind: One Should Neither Affirm The Existence Of God Nor Deny It. ... It Is Not That He Wished To Leave Certain Perspectives Open, Nor To Please Everyone. It Is Rather That He Was Identifying Himself, For His Part, With A Consciousness Of Self, Of The World, And Of Others That Was "strange" (the Word Is His) In A Sense Which Is Equally Well Destroyed By The Rival Explanations.

Visible And Mobile, My Body Is A Thing Among Things; It's Caught In The Fabric Of The World, And Its Cohesion Is That Of A Thing. But, Because It Moves Itself And Sees, It Holds Things In A Circle Around Itself.

Socrates Reminds Us That It Is Not The Same Thing, But Almost The Opposite, To Understand Religion And To Accept It.

Even Those Who Have Desired To Work Out A Completely Positive Philosophy Have Been Philosophers Only To The Extent That, At The Same Time, They Have Refused The Right To Install Themselves In Absolute Knowledge. They Taught Not This Knowledge, But Its Becoming In Us, Not The Absolute But, At Most, Our Absolute Relation To It, As Kierkegaard Said. What Makes A Philosopher Is The Movement Which Leads Back Without Ceasing From Knowledge To Ignorance, From Ignorance To Knowledge, And A Kind Of Rest In This Movement.

Thought Without Language, Says Lavelle, Would Not Be A Purer Thought; It Would Be No More Than The Intention To Think. And His Last Book Offers A Theory Of Expressiveness Which Makes Of Expression Not "a Faithful Image Of An Already Realized Interior Being, But The Very Means By Which It Is Realized.