*Being* is *Nothing*
August 31st, 2006, search relatedRelated posts :: No related posts
In a message dated 8/30/2006 9:35:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
GEVANS613 at aol.com writes:
Dr Michael Eldred:
Yes, “*Being* does not *name* anything - for there is nothing to be named.”
Strangely, we agree that being is nothing, you in the form of denial, I in the
form of affirmation. Children, and most other people, do not need to know
anything about dimension to play out their lives. They take it for granted — a
luxury that those who practise ontological thinking cannot afford.
Jud:
Sorry Dr. Eldred, Look again. I did NOT say that *Being* is Nothing* - I said
*there is nothing to be named.* So I ‘m afraid that I do not agree with your
employment of the *is of identity* in your tautologous coupling of *Being* and
*Nothing* as - *Being is Nothing.* on this occassion.
(Compare *Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor *is* *Elizabeth II of Great
Britain.*)
Your ontological position appears to be this:
(1) *Being* *is* Nothing. (*Being* = *Nothing*)
[Bernard] Ergo, nothing is nothin!–thus committing the sin of tautologism
but the Marxist schoolboy employment of the dialectical negation of the negation.
(bxbovasso)
