as a consequence --- that the modern, to the extent they're based on the ancient, are error-ridden. — tim wood
The first question on this road is, is Being an artifact of language (i.e, in itself meaningless)? That is, as language is a kind of template laid over the world, does the excavation of Being really mean digging just and only in language, with the consequence that "Being" would have only a language-function that once understood can and should be discarded. Or is it more? — tim wood
Well, this would suggest that without language you simply would not Be, which is of course not the case. — MPen89
...in the breakaway of humanity into Being...language, the happening in which being becomes word, was poetry. Language is the primal poetry in which a people poetizes Being. — Heidegger Metaphysics
Perhaps you feel metaphysics is akin to science in that modern is (usually) better, righter, or even best and right; and that older ideas, unless they're in the direct descent of modern ideas, are merely quaint, of merely antiquarian interest. — tim wood
The first question on this road is, is Being an artifact of language (i.e, in itself meaningless)? That is, as language is a kind of template laid over the world, does the excavation of Being really mean digging just and only in language, with the consequence that "Being" would have only a language-function that once understood can and should be discarded. Or is it more? — tim wood
We say, "It is," or "Things are." Each thing is, in some sense. Does each thing "be" in the exact same way? Or is Being (i.e., the Being of beings) a many, each being Being in its own way? — tim wood
More seriously regarding "Being," if the question being asked is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" I think that's a question best addressed by science, unless we're content with the results of mere speculation. But it's important to determine just what it is that's considered the subject matter of metaphysics. First causes? "Being as such"? The "problem of Universals"? — "Ciceronianus
Heidegger starts not by opposing existent with non-existent, but actual and non-existent. "As what is actual, Beings are 'actual,' that is, truly what-is" (1). The reason is that in a few paragraphs he wants to note an epoch, the beginning of the history of Being with the division in Being between 'thatness" and "whatness." "Being is divided into whatness and thatness" (2). Whatness (essence/quidditas) that-which-makes-something-what-it-is, whether it exists or not, is equated with possibility, not actuality (thatness). Which means that actual and existent are not quite the same thing.Being is that which distinguishes the existent from the non-existent. — "darthbarracuda
To get on the way to my question, I'm asking the preliminary question, whether Being is simply a semantic tool that allows language a way to refer to things, or if Being has some significance in itself beyond that. What do you say? — tim wood
Does each thing "be" in the exact same way? — tim wood
To get on the way to my question, I'm asking the preliminary question, whether Being is simply a semantic tool that allows language a way to refer to things, or if Being has some significance in itself beyond that. What do you say? — tim wood
Being is an English language present participle (i.e., present tense verbal form used as an adjective) which refers to something that actually exists....
Things may be a property, condition, context, action, event, process, interaction, or behaviour. — Galuchat
It's interesting to me that when I've lately wanted to explore the philosophy of emotions and mood, I've found that even analytic philosophers writing about such matters find themselves going back to Heidegger... — mcdoodle
You have my attention. Please elaborate upon the connection. Thanks. — Galuchat
'Being and time' of course related everything to angst, to fear/anxiety, but one can take the Heideggerian model of Dasein thrown into a world of bewilderment and conjure different ideas of what being in the world involves. — mcdoodle
Do you and/or Heidegger have a general definition of "(B/b)eing" that can be used as a starting point for conceptual development, and how does that relate to the historical "Categories of Being" proposed by Aristotle, Kant, Peirce, and others? — Galuchat
The first question on this road is, is Being an artifact of language (i.e, in itself meaningless)? That is, as language is a kind of template laid over the world, does the excavation of Being really mean digging just and only in language, with the consequence that "Being" would have only a language-function that once understood can and should be discarded. Or is it more? — tim wood
Discussions of "being" always immediately bog down in differences of definition expressed in convoluted language. It can be frustrating and pointless. In reading the responses to your post so far, you can see that different posters mean different things when they say the word. — T Clark
Do you and/or Heidegger have a general definition of "(B/b)eing" that can be used as a starting point for conceptual development, and how does that relate to the historical "Categories of Being" proposed by Aristotle, Kant, Peirce, and others
Wouldn't mind hearing a good "digested" interpretation apart from the lingo. — n0 0ne
the world is basically the shared background practices that we take for granted. Why are they taken for granted. Because they are background practices, they have to be for the most part. — bloodninja
This is why it makes no sense, for Heidegger, to speak about an 'external' world - it is simply a category error. The world is neither internal nor external; this is what the neologism 'being-in-the-world' is meant to capture, the fact that Dasein 'structurally' wedded to the world - no world, no Dasein, and inversely, no Dasein, no world. — StreetlightX
Thanks for the passage. Would you say that this is something like the revenge of common sense and/or emotional intelligence on the artificiality of epistemological tangles? Let's say that we further paraphrased your paraphrase into even simpler language. Would not the average person be tempted to agree? Did he just inject a worldly "emotional" intelligence into an otherwise arcane and dryly "theological" game? This is not intended to diminish the accomplishment, but only to try to specify it. — n0 0ne
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.