I think it's spectacularly silly to study or treat being as if it is a thing, and so am silly in doing so. — Ciceronianus
I quite agree. I think it's spectacularly silly to study or treat being as if it is a thing, and so am silly in doing so. — Ciceronianus
If one of Heidegger's interpreters came out in agreement with the view you express here, there might be grounds for agreement. But it remains very unclear just what is being asserted about being. — Banno
↪Janus
What?
The pretence is that somehow being - treated apparently as a thing - is structured by time.
Explain that. — Banno
That seems unfair, since I've answered very, very many questions concerning these folk, from you and from others. — Banno
Heidegger does not treat being as a thing; but there is no point trying to explain that to someone who has not read his work. — Janus
...so at the least you might critique the OP for misrepresenting Heidegger.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
...so at the least you might critique the OP for misrepresenting Heidegger. — Banno
:smirk: :up:I've been told more than once by those who've been initiated into the mysteries of Heidegger that it's incumbent on me to learn what he's saying (what the words he uses really mean), and that I shouldn't expect clarity from him, clarity being a kind of childish concern to begin with. When I was less kind then I am now, I used to reply I knew he was capable of clarity since he was perfectly clear in his praise of Der Fuhrer. But now I refrain from calling him a loathsome Nazi toady. — Ciceronianus
It would seem that being is nothing at all, except as the one for whom it is a concern says it is. For me, beings are whatever I encounter: no encounter, no being. — tim wood
"What is the Being of beings?" And I suspect the answer to that is analagous to questions as to truth. — tim wood
What is Being?
Nothing but an empty name. — 180 Proof
(Look at how "being" is used in any language-game.) — 180 Proof
However, if this read of him uncharitably misses the mark, why didn't he just come right out and say, paraphrasing Laozi's nameless dao and Buddha's anatta-anicca, or Schopenhauer's noumenon (à la natura naturans), that "the meaning of Being" is ... Bergson's la durée? Why the (crypto-augustinian re: "time") mystery-mongerer's career? — 180 Proof
Asking "what is being?" is asking "How do we use the word 'being'?" — Banno
Here are two puzzles, from Frege and Russell, that must be explained if one is to treating "exists" as a property. — Banno
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...?
2. It's not difficult to understand an apple that is not sweet, or an apple that is not red - but an apple that does not exist? What is it? — Banno
This goes for the sentence at the beginning of the puzzlement expressed in the OP: "There is something" has no straightforward translation in logic. — Banno
But "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." That is to say that being refers to the static state at a moment in time, and nothing to the continuous flow and transformation that being undergoes from one moment to the next. — unenlightened
Heidegger does not treat being as a thing; but there is no point trying to explain that to someone who has not read his work.
— Janus
But that is what is done in the OP:
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
...so at the least you might critique the OP for misrepresenting Heidegger. — Banno
His answer is that terms like ‘Is’ , Being’ and existence don’t point originarily to such notions as presence, identity, inherence and thingness , but show these concepts to be derivative of a more fundamental structure of becoming. — Joshs
Haven’t you thought about the origins of logic? — Joshs
Wouldnt a primordial theory of Being have to begin with the conditions of possibility for logic rather than simply presuppose it? — Joshs
Well, maybe I'm just as ignorant as Ciceronianus. – Das Man sneezes– "Gelassenheit!" :mask: — 180 Proof
(Look at how "being" is used in any language-game.) — 180 Proof
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.