Parmenides famously said, “apprehension and Being are the same,” and Heidegger quipped (I think in his Parmenides lecture course from the 40’s) such a thought makes you lose the desire to write books if you really understand it, which becomes obvious when it falls apart.  For example, we might apprehend movement fractionally, which starts out fine but proceeds into thoughtlessness.  In a walk, we might go from point A to point B.  But, in order to get to point B you need to make it halfway between A and B, to point C.  Yet, in order to make it to point C you must make it halfway between points A and C, point D, and this continues infinitely and absurdly until apprehension is impossible.  This breaking down shows the overwhelming majority of the time apprehending and Being coincide. It also shows the further and further we dive into out interpretive categories, the more opaque things become. For example, physicist Carlo Rovelli notes that the more we penetrate into the very small in physics, the less traditional interpretive physical categories like “substance with properties” and “time” seem to apply.

For example, one popular strategy in metaphysical thinking in debates is to wield examples and analogies like Jedi and Sith battling with light sabers.  For example, in the abortion “debate:”

(1)  Here’s an analogy that supports the pro-life position:

Imagine a firefighter rushing into a burning building. Inside, they find an unconscious person trapped under debris. The person isn’t awake, can’t speak for themselves, and isn’t visibly contributing to society in that moment—yet the firefighter risks their life to save them. Why? Because the inherent value of that human life doesn’t depend on their current abilities, awareness, or independence. It’s understood that they have the potential to recover, to live fully again, and that their worth exists simply because they are human.

In this analogy, the unborn child is like the unconscious person: not yet fully developed, unable to express themselves, and dependent on others. The pro-life stance argues that, just as we wouldn’t abandon the person in the burning building because of their temporary vulnerability, we shouldn’t deny the unborn their right to life based on their stage of development. Both have an intrinsic value and potential that warrants protection, regardless of their present state.

This analogy emphasizes the pro-life view that life’s worth isn’t contingent on external factors like consciousness or self-sufficiency, but is inherent from the moment it begins.

(2) Here’s an analogy that supports the pro-choice position:

Imagine a person wakes up one day to find themselves surgically connected to a stranger, with tubes linking their bloodstream to the other’s. A doctor explains that the stranger has a rare condition and needs to use their body for nine months to survive—without their consent, they’ll die. The person attached didn’t agree to this, and it will significantly impact their health, autonomy, and life plans. Legally and morally, they argue they shouldn’t be forced to sustain the stranger’s life against their will, even if disconnecting means the stranger won’t survive. Their body is theirs to control, not a resource obligated to others.

In this analogy, the pregnant woman is like the person waking up attached, and the fetus is the stranger relying on her body. The pro-choice stance holds that, just as no one can compel the person to remain connected—despite the stranger’s potential for life—a woman shouldn’t be forced to carry a pregnancy if she doesn’t consent to it. It emphasizes bodily autonomy, asserting that the right to decide what happens to one’s own body overrides the fetus’s potential, especially when the woman’s life, health, or freedom are at stake.

This analogy reflects the pro-choice view that personal choice and self-determination take precedence, even in situations where another’s life hangs in the balance.

THOUGHTS:

It’s remarkable the extent to which Nietzsche, the last metaphysician and cultural physician whose standard was health rather than truth, as an inverting of Platonism is right that taste and aesthetic preference apologetics has Hijacked understanding from teachers.  If a fourth-grade teacher gives students an excellent assignment of researching both sides of a “school uniforms” debate and then argue for the side they don’t prefer, no teacher should think there is a “correct” side of the debate to be arguing.  It comes down to taste.  Student research and thinking might yield various kinds of pro/con school uniform examples and analogies, such as here: an analogy supporting school uniforms and one against them,

For School Uniforms:

Imagine a sports team preparing for a big game. Each player wears the same jersey, not just to look cohesive, but to foster a sense of unity and focus on the collective goal—winning as a team. The uniform strips away distractions like flashy logos or designer labels, leveling the field so everyone’s attention stays on the play, not personal style. In this way, school uniforms act like the team jersey: they create a shared identity, reduce social pressures over clothing choices, and keep the focus on learning rather than appearances. Just as the team benefits from equality on the field, students benefit from a distraction-free environment where everyone starts on the same footing.

Against School Uniforms:

Picture an artist handed a blank canvas but told they can only use one color of paint. The restriction might simplify the process, but it stifles their ability to express who they are, explore their creativity, or stand out in a way that feels authentic. Forcing the same color on every artist ignores their individual talents and personalities, producing a uniform—but uninspired—gallery. Similarly, school uniforms are like that single color: they limit students’ freedom to express themselves through clothing, a key outlet for identity during formative years. Just as the artist’s uniqueness is dulled, students might feel their individuality is suppressed, turning school into a place of conformity rather than discovery.

A current example of this hidden Platonic metaphysics is how the other day the February 28th 2025 Trump/Vance-Zelensky meeting broke down into a shouting match. Liberals responded and interpreted this as a terrible Trump failure of Trump demanding Zelensky kiss the ring and gush thanks to the United States, while conservatives interpreted this as a spectacular Trump show of strength that exemplifies Trump’s “Peace through Strength” slogan/motto, which is Trump’s twist on the ancient Roman “Peace through Victory (Pax Romana)” model, though Trump interprets it through an Al Capone and Godfather “being shown respect” lens.

In the first two lines of Hölderlin’s “Voice of the People,” Hölderlin writes:

Unconcerned with our wisdom

The rivers still rush on, and yet

Who loves them not?  And aways do they move

My heart, when afar I hear them vanishing

Full of intimation, hastening along not

My path, yet more surely seaward.

The people come to learn who they are in relation to their history of dwelling on the river, and the river too comes to be what it is in relation to us historical dwellers – and yet, the river also has its own course, another course that is as Hölderlin says “Unconcerned with our wisdom.”  Perhaps if we keep meditating on Hölderlin’s rivers we can see a poetizing beyond Plato’s 2-world metaphysics (which has been undeniably successful if success is measured “as” universities with endless academic books and journal articles).  As we said previously Hölderlin has a poetry beyond Platonic 2-world metaphysics of the deficient sign/aistheton and true thought/noeton (Platonic based examples, analogies, metaphors, allegories, etc.). 

More of Heidegger’s reading of Hölderlin’s “The Ister” next time!