Modes of Being
February 7th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: The Relationship between Axiom and Translation :: Taxonomy :: a question if I may :: The Relationship between Axiom and Translation
Taking Care of Isness: Modes of Being
michaelP wrote:
>Pete:
>>>So, in the case of the be-ing (beyng) of a being, be-ing is
>>>hyphenated to indicate it is not the same being used in metaphysics.
>>>It is not a property of beings, it is not a thing, it is not a
>>>subject. The be-ing of a being, might instead be understood as the
>>>giving of a being.
>Joe:
>>it seems to me that this formulation just recreates the same problem
>>with different words.
>Two things, Joe:
>1) what is your problem (I mean when you say “the same problem”)?
how is the problem of explaining the ‘be-ing of a being’ solved by
saying its might mean the ‘giving of a being’?
>2) perhaps some of this wordy playground can be focussed with the
>following suggestion/formula (and perhaps not, if the direction you
>take is to avoid the ontological difference):
>rather than concern oneself with the words of/for be-ing (beying/Being,
>whatever) — like ousia, beingness, logos, physis, idea, hyperkeimenon,
>reality, actuality, existence, will, etc, etc {effectively engaging in
>linguistic science} — one could concern oneself with the be-ing of
>words (and perhaps, specifically, the be-ing words, as above); e.g. how
>do the words word? how do words (beings) give themselves, present
>themselves (be), as the words they are? might be a simple question
>here…
well, of the two of us, you are the one who believes that ‘to word’ is a
verb; so, perhaps you should describe the mode of being of a word.
it might help if you first took an inventory of the modes of being that
you recognize.
Heidegger spoke about various modes of being and about kinds of being
and ways of being; and, he even wondered what mode of being a dead
language has; but, never organized these modes into a compact taxonomy
of all that is. can that be done? can the various modes of being that
Heidegger recognizes be classified into larger, more inclusive
categories?
then maybe you can say where words fit into your taxonomy of all that
is.
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
