It solves his problem most neatly, showing that the philosopher goes straight to the questioning of the 'totality of beingness' and that the philosophical form and mark of his method is to be found precisely here: if it is the case that he stops for a moment at a 'Being' as singular as madness, it can only be because some naive person has tugged his sleeve and posed the question; of his own accord, he would never have lingered on these stories of naked kings and water jugs.