For no matter how much a work of art may appear to be a historical datum, and
thus a possible object of scholarly/scientific research, it is always the case
that the work says something to us, and it does so in such a way that its
statement can never be exhaustively expressed in a concept.
I, like other philosophers, have a habit of understatement in which “it seems plainly false” means “it is plainly false.”
… a mad crackpot genius named Wittgenstein who believed that everything was words. Really. If your car would not start, it was apparently to be
understood as a language problem. If you were unable to love, you were lost in language.
Any everyday story in daily performance is
oriented by language in execution, by talking and speaking, just as
no love story is thinkable without at least three words: you, I, we.
What you do is first said to you the other day. And what
you say becomes an event as it escapes from you.
But if you say: “How am I to know what he means, when I see nothing but the signs he gives?”
then I say: “How is he to know what he means, when he has nothing but the signs either?”