Nothing but an empty name. A transcendental, or categorical, placeholder. The shadowing of shadows ...What is Being?
But explaining clearly what is added to an apple by existing...? — Banno
an apple that does not exist? What is it? — Banno
existence is not treated as a predicate in logic. That is, there is no simple way to parse. "Xtrix exists". — Banno
Too much of nothing
Can make a man ill at ease
One man's temper might rise
While another man's temper might freeze
In the day of confession
We cannot mock a soul
Oh, when there's too much of nothing
No one has control. — His Bobness
1. What is the difference between a sweet, juicy, red apple and a sweet, juicy red apple that exists? The difference between a red apple and a green apple, or a sweet apple and a sour apple, is pretty clear. But explaining clearly what is added to an apple by existing...?
Asking "what is being?" is asking "How do we use the word 'being'?"; — Banno
This is a quite interesting question and subject, and certainly debatable in this place!"What is 'is-ness'?" — Xtrix
In other words "The beings are the frames and Being is the reel" :smirk: (and "frames moving" corresponds to (Einstein's) "persistent illusion" of (Newton's) time)."what is being?" is best answered with "Yes, being is what is". An alternative and even more informative response would be "Being is, and nothing happens." — unenlightened
The "is" in this sentence is apparently referring to being, but being is presupposed with when using the "is." So it's almost like asking "What is 'is-ness'?" — Xtrix
In "What is Metaphysics" he says it's what we experience when we contemplate the void. I guess it's a matter of which "Being" we're talking about. — frank
I'm not sure why you call attention to this since that's made extremely explicit in that essay. :chin: — frank
Whatever else it may be, you are going to get stuck on the word "is" and try to find some "essence" or a common attribute common to the word which may not (dare is say it?) exist. "Is" can only make sense in relation to something else. So what is "is-ness" cannot be answered unless it's connected with something else — Manuel
The problem comes when you say what is it that you are saying "is". For as soon as you say this is a table or this is a river, you've shifted from the word "is" to a concept "table", "river". But you aren't going to find something common to "is" by saying that a table is or a river is. — Manuel
:100: Quine says "to be is the value of a bounded variable", no? Makes pragmatic sense. Besides, "what is" is a sentence fragment, a cipher (or koan), that does not say anything. "Table is" and "river is", for instances, are oracular noises mistaken by Heideggerasts for reflective articulations (i.e. more charlatanry than mere sophistry).For as soon as you say this is a table or this is a river, you've shifted from the word "is" to a concept "table", "river". But you aren't going to find something common to "is" by saying that a table is or a river is. — Manuel
may have misinterpreted you, but I thought you were referring to my previous comment on Being as condition of possibility for understanding ‘use’. — Joshs
Maybe you could explain what the structure of temporality has to do with contemplating Nothing?
Seems like that would be more about Becoming than Being. — frank
Being and becoming are the same thing for Heidegger. He doesn’t begin with objectively present objects and then set them into motion or transition. He argues that this is the traditional idea of time we inherited from Aristotle. Instead he begins from change and derives. presence from it. — Joshs
present" nows that pass away and arrive at the same time. Time is understood as a sequence, as the "flux" of nows, as the "course of time. — Joshs
The past, present and future don’t operate for Heidegger as sequential modes which mark distinct states of objects. They interpenetrate each other so completely that they together form a single unitary event of occurrence. — Joshs
Temporalizing does not mean a "succession" of the ecstasies. The future is not later than the having-been, and the having-been is not earlier than the present. — Joshs
But you start by saying he saw no difference between Becoming and Being, then you say he derived one from the other (as Hegel did.). Is that a contradiction? — frank
So this is fine (although heavily mystical), but what does it have to do with Nothing? — frank
You’ll have to let me know how this differs from Hegel, but when I say that Heidegger derives Being from Becoming , what I mean is that he has to somehow explain where Western philosophy and science got the idea that there is such a thing as static being or ‘is ness’ , given that becoming is fundamental. His answer is that the concept of objective presence is a distorting abstraction, a leveling down or forgetting of the larger totality of relevance that gives sense to such notions. — Joshs
Acts of directly taking something, having something, dealing with it “as something,” are so original that trying to understand anything without employing the “as” requires (if it's possible at all) a peculiar inversion of the natural order. — Joshs
Whatever else it may be, you are going to get stuck on the word "is" and try to find some "essence" or a common attribute common to the word which may not (dare is say it?) exist. — Manuel
Better yet , from a Heideggerian perspective , asking ‘what is being’ is asking ‘what is the condition of possibility of ‘use’?...Heidegger says it is the structure of temporality. — Joshs
Why "now and then" but not "here and there"? After all, whatever being is, if it is structured by time it is also and just as much structured by location... Why the Heideggerian preoccupation with time? — Banno
I would describe "is-ness" as apparency of existence. It refers to something that apparently exists as true or fact. It persists in time and we agree upon that it exists, i.e. it is real for us. — Alkis Piskas
Do I? Not words I would use.You mean location as in the localization of points in an objective geometry of space-time? — Joshs
Because that’s an idealization that desperately needs to be deconstructed.
Heidegger explains... — Joshs
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.