THE STUPIDITY OF CREATIO EX NIHILO.
August 14th, 2006, search relatedRelated posts :: THE STUPIDITY OF CREATIO EX NIHILO. :: THE STUPIDITY OF CREATIO EX NIHILO. :: THE STUPIDITY OF CREATIO EX NIHILO. :: THE STUPIDITY OF CREATIO EX NIHILO.
Well, I would like to add to this message that I read many times Heidegger
mentioning ontological difference (i.e., a conceptual distinction which
allows us to understand the existence) but I never read of an ontic
difference (i.e. an essential/substantial difference between Being and
beings). Do you know if the expression ontico-ontological difference
pertains to Heidegger’s text or is something coined by his interpreters?
In my opinion, Being is simply the essence of beings, and all beings
participate in Being (because it is their principle) and Being participates
in all beings (because they are).
Greetings,
Tudor
> —–Original Message—–
> From: heidegger-bounces at soca.ecu.edu.au [mailto:heidegger-
> bounces at soca.ecu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Tudor Georgescu
> Sent: 14 augustus 2006 maandag 3:16
> To: ‘Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger’
> Subject: RE: THE STUPIDITY OF CREATIO EX NIHILO.
>
> > Tudor, there is a third possibility: that everything does not come from
> > (originate from, caused/determined by, created by/from, etc) anything;
> > that
> > everything just *is* and does not ‘need’ a ‘reason’ or ‘origin’ or
> ’source
> > of creation’, etc, to just be? That, of course, begs the question of
> what
> > and how (the) everything (ta panta) is that it not require a starter
> > (arche)… Perhaps the arche accompanies (comes along) ta panta rather
> > than
> > sits nicely at some starting gate.
>
> In a certain sense, this is how God is; He just is, without needing a
> cause
> or principle to create Him. And since creation is part of God, the same
> applies to creation, but only in a certain sense. Otherwise, the world has
> a
> history which makes us speculate how was it in the beginning of time and
> to
> put ourselves all those complicated questions which metaphysicians have
> put
> themselves for millennia.
>
> The path of accepting that things are is a lazy way out of philosophy,
> unless it is pushed to its normal conclusion, namely that God’s existence
> is
> immediately given, and that God has an inner dynamics which the
> metaphysics
> seeks to explain. Indeed I see that between “world” (or universe) and
> “God”
> is just a difference of nuance, i.e. of properly articulating what the
> world
> is and what it does contain. And, by recognizing the fact that things are,
> and that that is given, we also recognized the universal principle behind
> all manifestation, namely the fact of being, the fact that things are,
> their
> “is-ness”, rather than there/here is a void including nothing, not even
> the
> nothing. And things simple share in the substance of the “is” (being),
> which
> is given.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Tudor
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> heidegger mailing list
> heidegger at soca.ecu.edu.au
> http://www.soca.ecu.edu.au/mailman/listi…
> http://heidegger.an-archos.com/
>
>
> –
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.9/417 - Release Date: 11/08/2006
