I agree -- if we're ascribing to the word "being" as something "changeless," for example. — Xtrix
But when you view being in a different sense -- not as the "changeless" but as that which emerges, as in phusis, then you see the original unity. Granted, they do become disjoined -- just as later they do as "being and thinking" -- but we come to understand from what they became disjoined: the Greek sense of being in phusis. — Xtrix
No, they both relate to being in the sense of phusis mentioned above. They're both aspects of this. Phusis -- the Greek understanding of being -- is not only "stability" or "changeless Form." If that were the case, the only entities that "are," or that "have" being, are those that don't change. But that's absurd: a river "is" just as much as a triangle, matter, or universal concept "is." — Xtrix
I agree -- if we're ascribing to the word "being" as something "changeless," for example.
— Xtrix
Right, this is "being" in the Parmenidean sense. Being is associated with truth, what is, is, and it is impossible for it not to be, and what is not, is not, and it is impossible for it to be. What is, i.e. "being" can be understood as eternal changeless truth. — Metaphysician Undercover
But when you view being in a different sense -- not as the "changeless" but as that which emerges, as in phusis, then you see the original unity. Granted, they do become disjoined -- just as later they do as "being and thinking" -- but we come to understand from what they became disjoined: the Greek sense of being in phusis.
— Xtrix
I don't see any "original unity". Being in the sense of what emerges is more like Hegel's "being". Are you sure that Heidegger doesn't get his sense of "being" from Hegel? — Metaphysician Undercover
This seems a little confused to me. It appears like you are saying that there is a sense of being which means phusis. There is no "being in the sense of phusis". That is a misrepresentation. However, there may have been a "phusis in the sense of being". — Metaphysician Undercover
"Phusis is the emergence can be experienced everywhere: for example, in celestial processes (the rising of the sun), in the surging of the sea, in the growth of plants, in the coming forth of animals and human beings from the womb. But phusis, the emerging sway, is not synonymous with these processes, which we still today count as part of "nature." This emerging and standing-out-in-itself-from-iself may not be taken as just one process among others that we observe in beings. Phusis is Being itself, by virtue of which beings first become and remain observable." (Intro, p. 15) —
Being relates to phusis, and becoming relates to phusis, as two distinct ways of describing what is referred to by phusis. — Metaphysician Undercover
Being always refers to the stable aspect of phusis, — Metaphysician Undercover
as described by Parmenides, — Metaphysician Undercover
But I'm not understanding why you don't see the unity. That which emerges, that which shows itself, which "appears," is the being of entities in the Greek sense. Entities (beings) may be seen as changing or not changing, moving or not moving -- but they all exist, they all "are." To say entities that move or change or "become" do not possess "being" is simply a mistake. — Xtrix
No, the Greek understanding of being is phusis. When I say "being in the sense of phusis" this means the same: phusis is the word that describes the being of beings. Heidegger says the same, and it's worth going over the reasons for this-- I can't transcribe his entire lecture. — Xtrix
But that's just misunderstanding what the word means. Beings show up, emerge, appear, unconceal themselves -- this is phusis, the "emerging, abiding sway." This is how the Greeks apprehend beings: — Xtrix
Where in his poem are you interpreting this from exactly? He never says being "always refers to the stable aspect of phusis." He does speak especially of the Goddess "truth," however. — Xtrix
You start out by referring to "the being of entities", and that is consistent with the ancient Greek usage of being, which is a verb. The you switch to equate "being" with an entity ("Entities (beings) may be seen as changing or not changing..."), and that is to use "being" as a noun. — Metaphysician Undercover
So we can talk about the being of things, and the becoming of things, but this is not to talk about the same aspect of the things. — Metaphysician Undercover
but it is supposed that the thing itself provides some unity, by having both being, and becoming. — Metaphysician Undercover
But that's just misunderstanding what the word means. Beings show up, emerge, appear, unconceal themselves -- this is phusis, the "emerging, abiding sway." This is how the Greeks apprehend beings:
— Xtrix
Now you're switching "being" to a noun, talking about "beings", and this is not consistent with the ancient Greek. — Metaphysician Undercover
There was this type of thing, and that type of thing, "species", and fundamental elements which all types of things were composed of, but they didn't have an overall concept of "being" which could be used to refer to any different thing as "a being". — Metaphysician Undercover
"What we have said helps us to understand the Greek interpretation of Being that we mentioned at the beginning, in our explication of the term "metaphysics" -- that is, the apprehension of Being as phusis. The later concepts of "nature," we said, must be held at a distance from this: phusis means the emergent self-upraising, the self-unfolding that abides in itself. In this sway, rest and movement are closed and opened up from an originally unity. This sway is the overwhelming coming-to-presence that has not yet been surmounted in thinking, and within which that which comes to presence essentially unfolds as beings. But this sway first steps forth from concealment -- that is, in Greek, aletheia (unconcealment) happens -- insofar as the sway struggles itself forth as a world. Through world, beings first come to being." —
Where in his poem are you interpreting this from exactly? He never says being "always refers to the stable aspect of phusis." He does speak especially of the Goddess "truth," however.
— Xtrix
He says that what is, is, and cannot not be. This means impossible to change, therefore stable. If he said that what is, is possible to not be, then it would refer to instability. — Metaphysician Undercover
That intellectual virus "First we must define our terms" infects this thread.
The analysis of this concept is very important indeed to understand our current scientific conception of the world, and therefore the predominant world ontology — Xtrix
Hopefully that was clearer. — Xtrix
Translate your sentence this way: "the being of beings and the becoming of beings." You see where the problem is, I think. The equating of "being" as something changeless, as something opposite of "becoming," of all change and motion and flux -- this is the mistake. Better to say "the permanence of beings and the becoming of beings." In that case, I totally agree they're very different aspects. — Xtrix
The "thing" (the being) itself exists, of course -- whether changing or otherwise. It has being. "Becoming" in general has "being." — Xtrix
Beings are nouns, yes. Being, on the other hand, isn't a noun, or a "thing." The being of beings is what we're discussing, in fact. If no-thing emerged or showed up in any way for us, there'd be no question of being at all. — Xtrix
They did: phusis. That's the entire point. — Xtrix
He's discussing Being — Xtrix
I wanted to know in what sense you were talking about "being". Are you discussing what things have in common, "being", existence, like when we say that a thing "is", instead of a fictional thing which is not? In this case "being" is a verb, what a thing is doing, — Metaphysician Undercover
You seemed to be switching back and forth between the two — Metaphysician Undercover
Instead of giving me a clear answer, you've introduced a third sense of being, a capitalized "Being", which appears specific to Heidegger, but you want to assign it to ancient Greece. — Metaphysician Undercover
It is not the verb I described above, because you say it is not a property of things, the activity which is proper to things as "being". — Metaphysician Undercover
Instead, you assign to it the mystical description of "emergence", or "emerging sway". The problem though, as I explained to you already, is that these concepts are better associated with the ancient Greek "becoming", rather than "being", — Metaphysician Undercover
Greek "becoming", rather than "being", and these two are distinct in ancient Greek conceptualization. — Metaphysician Undercover
OK, so you want to remove "being" in the sense of the verb, "the 'being' of beings" and replace it with "the 'permanence' of being". That's fine, if it makes more sense to you this way, but the problem is that we are discussing how the ancient Greeks talked about it, and they used what is translated as "being", and Parmenides described this in terms of permanence. — Metaphysician Undercover
This I don't understand either. What do you mean by "showed up"? — Metaphysician Undercover
"Phusis" does not mean the same as "being". You're wrong to equate these two. They are completely distinct. So if that is your "entire point", it's wrong. Your quoted passage says that "Being" (it's capitalized, so this is the third sense, the Heideggerian sense) is equivalent to the ancient Greek "phusis". But this sense is not "being" in the ancient Greek sense of "being", it's a new sense created by Heidegger, signified by the capitalization. — Metaphysician Undercover
Phusis was the Greek term for being, yes. This is exactly what Heidegger says, and he's correct. — Xtrix
No, phusis was not the Greek term for being. — Metaphysician Undercover
So if Heidegger introduced a concept of Being which is supposed to be equivalent with the Greek concept of phusis, then this Heideggerian concept of Being is not the same as the Greek concept of being. — Metaphysician Undercover
unless you have something more to contribute other than a simple declaration. — Xtrix
unless you have something more to contribute other than a simple declaration.
— Xtrix
It appears like you haven't read any of my posts, because that is just about all I've been doing here, is justifying this claim. — Metaphysician Undercover
Actually Zeno's paradoxes prove that the "continuum" is a faulty idea. — Metaphysician Undercover
What we know is that nothing is concrete. Everything is in flux, in motion, changing from one moment to the next. And to me this has more in common with a dream than a concrete physical reality. — neonspectraltoast
What we know is that nothing is concrete. Everything is in flux, in motion, changing from one moment to the next. And to me this has more in common with a dream than a concrete physical reality.
— neonspectraltoast
If nothing is concrete, is that statement concrete? — Xtrix
No. It's some kind of paradox. Because of its truth it is made untrue. — neonspectraltoast
Is he reducing becoming to being? Already in Being and Time being was interpreted to mean something temporal. Is not temporality or time becoming? If being is temporality it seems that being is becoming. — waarala
But I think the question is about the relation between constant change and something that sustains itself through the change. That there is some relatively enduring whole through the accidental continuous change. — waarala
Somehow he recognizes this pure becoming as a "potential moment" in the whole. There is this purely accidental moment involved here. It refers to meaninglessness or that there is no "world" involved at that moment? — waarala
Yeah, I realized early on this site is full of know-it-all pricks who would rather listen to themselves talk than to give a guy a break. Frankly, I'm not interested in your asinine rebuttal. — neonspectraltoast
"Being" has been Heidegger's main concern right from the beginning. From this one could ask, that is Heidegger interested merely in something static? — waarala
Is he not interested in change or becoming at all? — waarala
Is he reducing becoming to being? — waarala
Already in Being and Time being was interpreted to mean something temporal. — waarala
I think for H. it is a question about some enduring whole amidst the change. That is, if there shall be Dasein and its truth. — waarala
But the change of being can't be pure becoming (change) or nothingness for us. — waarala
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.