{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.044534412955465584, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.290519877675841, '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}}
Neither an Accident nor a Mistake

Something ... happened ... in the first half of this century, and the second half, hovering between nightmare and parody, is only its shadow. Even so we must take its measure. Not on a small scale, based on the last three or four centuries.... But since philosophy, even in its possibility, is at stake, the true assessment, incalculable as it is, of the entire history of the West is needed. And that is another matter altogether. We know that this other matter was, at the time, the Heidegger affair.... Since Nietzsche no thinker has delved so deeply and so far into the question of the essence of philosophy (and consequently, the essence of thought), nor has there been anyone who has opened a dialogue of such breadth and rigor with the tradition of the West. Nonetheless, a detail concerning this subject requires our attention: to subscribe, as I do, to Heidegger's theses (and particularly to his theses about philosophy), or even to grant a primary place to his thought, does not amount to any kind of declaration or profession of "Heideggerianism," as it is called.... Strictly speaking, the idea of a "Heideggerianism" is meaningless. It is not out of coyness or inconsistency that Heidegger constantly reminded us that "there is no philosophy of Heidegger." This clearly was an expression of his own question in condensed form: the question of Being could not in any way produce a new thesis on Being or, even less, give rise to any sort of "concept of the world." ... To be or call oneself "Heideggerian" does not mean anything, then, any more than being or calling oneself "anti-Heideggerian." Or rather, both mean the same thing, that one has missed the essential of Heidegger's