Accordingly, we can reformulate our question thus: what is the condition that legitimates science's ancestral statements? This is a question that seems to be of the transcendental type, but it is peculiar in that its primary condition is the relinquishing of transcendentalism. It demands of us that we remain as distant from naive realism as from correlationist subtlety, which are the two ways of refusing to see ancestrality as a problem. We must bear in mind the apparently unanswerable force of the correlation circle (contrary to the naive realist), as well as its irremediable incompatibility with ancestrality (contrary to the correlationist). Ultimately then, we must understand that what distinguishes the philosopher from the non-philosopher in this matter is that only the former is capable of being astonished (in the strong sense) by the straightforwardly literal meaning of the ancestral statement. The virtue of transcendentalism does not lie in rendering realism illusory, but in rendering it astonishing, i e. apparently unthinkable, yet true, and hence eminently problematic. The arche-fossil enjoins us to track thought by inviting us to discover the 'hidden passage' trodden by the latter in order to achieve what modern philosophy has been telling us for the past two centuries is impossibility itself: to get out of ourselves, to grasp the in-itself, to know what is whether we are or not.

in-itself replied to your post:@in-itself replied to your post: oh my god i got...

@in-itself replied to your post: oh my god i got my hair pull...

Being is...