An Unprejudiced Inquiry into The Question of Being**
March 19th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: An Unprejudiced Inquiry into The Question of Being :: An Unprejudiced Inquiry into The Question of Being :: An Unprejudiced Inquiry into The Question of Being :: An Unprejudiced Inquiry into The Question of Being
michaelP wrote:
>Bernard states:
>>This is simple enough however remote on this list following Eldred’s
>>dialectic double-speak about “Being” that quite eludes Heidegger’s
>>archai materia (”Being”) as it does Aristotle’s prima materia.
>If a being is something that appears (for example), then be-ing (of
>that being) is the appearing (and dis-appearing) of that being (as an
>insurrection against nothingness, non-appearance) and not the
>appearance of what appears, or what appears as such (the being).
if ‘being’ is your chosen root predicate; then, it would be quite
alright to say a being is something that appears — insurrecting
against nothingness, so to speak. however, to call this “appearing (and
dis-appearing) of that being” by the term ‘be-ing’ is problematic for
several reasons:
[1]: you already have useful terms, ‘appearing’ and ‘dis-appearing’. you
don’t actually need another term such as ‘be-ing’ to name what you just
named.
[2]: if you actually need another term, ‘becoming’ would better describe
the appearing in time of a specific being and the subsequent
disappearing from time. becoming also better describes the endless
change from the time of appearance to the time of disappearance. as we
age we are endlessly becoming what we are — older.
[3]: claiming that be-ing is the appearing and dis-appearing of a
particular being predicates “the appearing and dis-appearing of a
particular being” of be-ing. attributing predicates to be-ing is what
turns be-ing into a being (according to Heidegger); and, requires that
it stands out from … ‘the Nothing’ … Heidegger’s “third thing, which
we must distinguish in addition to being and beings”. [Basic Concepts,
section 9. notice that ‘Nothing’ is now capitalized; but, ‘being’ has
been decapitalized.]
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
