Words are not just wind Words have something to say Then if what they have to say is not fixed, then do they really say something ? Or do they say nothing ?
Whether we want to ask that `was this outpouring of anguish genuine' or `was it a literary device to call attention', our knowledge is limited to our sensory impressions and their images as ideas. An idea of the self, if it is to be intelligible and meaningful, must be derived from an impression. And mostly we are referring all those impressions to a self which is imagined to exist and to underly them or contain them. But someone could also said, that when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never catch myself this is paradigm shift You should say that everyone knows what it is called. But I do not question you about the name, but about the essence of the thing. Made familiar and domestical, by the many experiences which we see thereof every hour in the day. But not as if we really understand anymore what principle or virtue that is, than when we say the stars are moved by intelligences. Our epoch has solved, even too effectively, the problem of the independent intellectual personality. Then try to ask some questions about it to try to understand it, rather than assume we already know what it means. When there is no impression, there is no idea, where there is no impression, the idea is meaningless, is nonsense, is a fraud. A seemingly harmless question : From what impression, if any, does the idea of cause arise ? It must be subjective, it must come from the mind. Then, It's the art.
