I question a bit whether using the origins of language to make sense of it all necessarily gives you the answers (definition wise) to words, I feel as if Heidegger’s explanation of words may be too limited, people having a different understanding of them nowadays.
Ex. “saving does not mean to snatch something from danger. To save really means to set something free into its own essence.”
Would not initially think of that to be the description of “saving”
When discussing the idea of a bridge being a “thing” in that the space it is in becomes a location because of the bridge, I felt as if I may disagree. The space had still been a location, a place on earth with coordinates, occupied by plants and a river and what not. I feel the bridge potentially made it a more specific location, a new place of activity.
When selecting a space to focus in on on google maps, whether there is a structure there or not it will still bring you to that “location” because it is still a space.
Are ruins no longer a location?