How do you personally distinguish these terms:
Reality, Existence, Being, World and Actuality. — Marty
Being is. [Ontology]
Reality is a qualitative determination of being (e.g. real as opposed to unreal; the category you use to differentiate from negative qualities of a being). [Ontology]
Existence is the being of essence (i.e. if all conditions for a thing are met, a being can come into existence). [Metaphysics]
Actuality is absolutely necessary being (e.g. as opposed to possible or contingent or mere necessary being). [Metaphysics]
I'm not asking for disagreement. Though I had a friend recently give me his spin on it: — Marty
Reality, Existence, Being, World and Actuality. — Marty
Look, I've been on these forums since they've been built. And then I read the post on the ones prior to this before this one was built. I know the environment, I know people generally like content, but I'm asking a question; I'm not trying to debate anyone as of yet. — Marty
I think it's best not to approach these terms with any pre-set meaning, as it were.... When you read the history of philosophy, alot of the time it becomes clear that often, when two people talk about say, Being, they don't just advance two different perspectives on 'Being' - they are literally talking about two different things altogether, that just so happen to share the name 'Being'. — StreetlightX
Like, just advocating for a form of pluralism? — Marty
How do you personally distinguish these terms:
Reality, Existence, Being, World and Actuality.
Of course the question concerns things like: Is existence actual, or actuality also entail existence? Are things with being also things that don't necessarily exist, etc? Are things with essences necessarily real, or exist? Does the world include the fictional? — Marty
multiple different ways of interpreting being. — Marty
I'm not one of those people, but certainly what's at stake in any philosophical debate isn't going to be accepting that any system works according to its own intrinsic system... — Marty
Reality, Existence, Being, World and Actuality. — Marty
Take for example, how Heidegger and Hegel speak about nothing could be seen as problematic by analytic philosophers? It might have a use-value, or say something interesting, but for a lot of people it ends up being incoherent, and then it to be repudiated for a better system. Not accepted as a system among other systems that all work in their own light. — Marty
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.