{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017527675276752766, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.896739130434782, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Heidegger's Language and Thinking (review)

that the latter in fact play no role in shaping what they write. Nor is it clear that this is the crucial question in the epistemology of the essay. A more fruitful approach to this problem might well be through recent studies (such as those of the Italian historian Carlo Ginzburg) exploring an alternative model of knowledge of and through the individual—and whose suppression by the Galilean model is coeval with the rise of essay as a form. This would have the advantage of foregrounding the importance of the particular and the detail without making the foundationalist assumptions mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Despite these reservations, I find Good's discussion of the general features of essay-writing stimulating. The chapters on individual essayists are sensitive and often original, especially when he turns his attention to authors like Samuel Johnson, whose works in this genre are less well known. All in all, this is an excellent study of the essay which should be read with care by anyone interested in the subject.