Poetically? Sure, why not? Even good philosophers achieve poetry occasionally. But each person one unique, fleeting perspective? Even a bad philosopher would insist on more than that.

Being distances itself from itself in ways that create myriad, unique, fleeting perspectives from which to experience itself, and each person is one of these perspectives. — charles ferraro

If we correct the last line to read each person is all of these myriad perspectives , then it applies to numerous philosophies , starting with Nietzsche.

I think that your question raises the question of what particular 'being' know itself through us? Is it some transcendent reality, or our own individual experiences of being? We can ask what is being, and I believe that it has been answered in so many different ways by various thinkers from so many different ages, traditions and perspectives.

Define being! No, on second thoughts - don't. It doesn't actually refer to anything. It has all the definitional qualities of a linguistic spandrel; a concept described incidentally by other architectural features of a meaningful linguistic structure.

Which philosophers, if any, can be said to subscribe to the following contention:

Being distances itself from itself in ways that create myriad, unique, fleeting perspectives from which to experience itself, and each person is one of these perspectives. — charles ferraro

Off the top of my head (more or less)
• Laozi
• Isaac Luria
• G.W.F. Hegel
• Arthur Schopenhauer
• John A. Wheeler
• Scott Adams

Being distances itself from itself in ways that create myriad, unique, fleeting perspectives from which to experience itself, and each person is one of these perspectives. — charles ferraro

FWIW, here's my personal definition of holistic BEING, as contrasted with any particular being. Is that close to your understanding? Eternal BEING looking at He/r reflection in a panoply of created beings. :smile:

BEING :
In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
Note : Real & Ideal are modes of being. BEING, the power to exist, is the source & cause of Reality and Ideality. BEING is eternal, undivided and static, but once divided into Real/Ideal, it becomes our dynamic Reality.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Ground of Being :
Paul Tillich was critical of the view of God as a type of being or presence. He felt that, if God were a being, God could not then properly be called the source of all being (due to the question of what, in turn, created God). As an alternative, he suggested that God be understood as the “ground of Being-Itself”.
https://religiousnaturalism.org/god-as-ground-of-being-paul-tillich/

Being distances itself from itself in ways that create myriad, unique, fleeting perspectives from which to experience itself, and each person is one of these perspectives. — charles ferraro

I hope this doesn't seem off-topic to you. It's what came to mind when I read the above. This is from a post Wayfarer made last week.

This idea is not dissimilar to one in many of Alan Watt's books. For example The Book: on the Taboo against Knowing who you Are, which 'delves into the cause and cure of the illusion that the self is a separate ego. Modernizes and restates the ancient Hindu philosophy of Vedanta and brings out the full force of realizing that the self is in fact the root and ground of the universe.' Watts does bring an element of the 'divine play', the game that Brahman plays by manifesting as the multiplicity, each part of which then 'forgets' its relation to the whole. — Wayfarer

It depends on what you mean by "being", which can turn out to be (hah!) quite ambiguous.

I believe Schopenhauer once said that we are "nature coming to know herself", which if not "being" per se, sounds accurate.

I believe Schopenhauer once said that we are "nature coming to know herself", which if not "being" per se, sounds accurate. — Manuel

It is a perennial philosophical reflection that if one looks deeply enough into oneself, one will discover not only one’s own essence, but also the essence of the universe. For as one is a part of the universe as is everything else, the basic energies of the universe flow through oneself, as they flow through everything else. For that reason it is thought that one can come into contact with the nature of the universe if one comes into substantial contact with one’s ultimate inner being.

Among the most frequently-identified principles that are introspectively brought forth — and one that was the standard for German Idealist philosophers such as Fichte, Schelling and Hegel who were philosophizing within the Cartesian tradition — is the principle of self-consciousness. With the belief that acts of self-consciousness exemplify a self-creative process akin to divine creation, and developing a logic that reflects the structure of self-consciousness, namely, the dialectical logic of position, opposition and reconciliation (sometimes described as the logic of thesis, antithesis and synthesis), the German Idealists maintained that dialectical logic mirrors the structure not only of human productions, both individual and social, but the structure of reality as a whole, conceived of as a thinking substance (or subject)... — SEP Entry on Schopenhauer

:up:

In an evolving and emerging universe it makes better sense to say becoming, rather then being, imo. The nature of becoming is self organization. Things ( including us ) assemble themselves into themselves, in a bottom up fashion, so what they become is something unique and intrinsic to themselves. No other entity can share in precisely this experience. If there is a larger entity that all things contribute to the making of ( a collective consciousness ), it will have its own experience - something different to the experience of its components. In a similar way to us having a different consciousness to the cells that compose us.

There is only us experiencing this consciousness, but bear in mind that upon death we get recycled, and perhaps in time we will experience all there is to experience, thankfully it wont be with the same consciousness. :smile:

Actually, I had Sartre in mind when I asked this question. Specifically, his explanation of how Being-for-Itself constantly issues from Being-in-Itself through a process of nihilation.

Ultimate Being, for Schopenhauer, had nothing to do with the evolution of a transcendent Reason, or Idea, via a dialectical (thesis, antithesis, synthesis) process reaching ever higher levels of rational perfection throughout human history and culture. For Hegel, Being was Rationality.

For Schopenhauer, ultimate Being was a non-rational, purposeless, blind Will-to-Live that manifested itself throughout the several ascending levels of inanimate and animate nature until it reached its highest manifestation, and achieved full self-awareness through representation in human consciousness.

At this point, human beings had a choice. They could either continue to affirm, or decide to deny, this Will-to-Live which constituted their essential nature.

Well, my take on 'the Great Will' is that it is 'self-reproducing by self-devouring' insofar as it manifests 'individuated' beings (i.e. predators-prey, natural catastrophes), and in this way the noumenon "distances itself from itself" through phenomena (worlds, lives), much as tempest seas pound shorelines relentlessly with crashing waves which always drain back into the deep. Schop's 'Great Will' is unconscious, that's true, conjuring churned-up nightmares (expiring individual wills-to-live (Ids)) like Cthulhu dreaming in R'lyeh.

However, Sartre's 'phenomenological ontology', for me, is too cartesian for the "in-itself" to recursively use the "for-itself" in the way you suggest ... but I haven't read BN since the early 80s so maybe I'm misremembering it.

Definitely Plotinus. God or Divine Being may be thought of as a being with a myriad faces through which he sees the world. And this goes back to Plato who said that God put light-bearing eyes in the faces of human beings.

Specifically, his explanation of how Being-for-Itself constantly issues from Being-in-Itself through a process of nihilation. — charles ferraro

Maybe Sartre is nihilist.

Something that this thread lacks so far is the concept represented by 'self-realisation'. In terms of Advaita Vedanta, the self of the individual is indeed the self of all, but is enmired or ensnared in illusion due to its attachment to material form. Realising the unity of the self with the self of all (Brahman) is the fulfilment of the Vedantic philosophy, known as self-realisation. (A similar sentiment of the separation of the soul from the physical body is hinted at in Plato - Phaedo.) Plotinus was said to have attained the 'realisation of unity' only twice in his life, but many scholars believe that this is a direct parallel with the Vedantic teaching of 'union of atman and Brahman'. The underlying insight of all these ideas, found in many forms, is the re-union of the alienated individual self with its original source which is also the source of being. It is not necessarily theistic in orientation, as for instance Advaita teaches in terms of a non-personal absolute (which is therefore anathema to Christian dogma where the source of being is a divine Person.)

For Schopenhauer, ultimate Being was a non-rational, purposeless, blind Will-to-Live that manifested itself throughout the several ascending levels of inanimate and animate nature until it reached its highest manifestation, and achieved full self-awareness through representation in human consciousness. — charles ferraro

However:

According to Schopenhauer, aesthetic perception offers only a short-lived transcendence from the daily world. Neither is moral awareness, despite its comparative tranquillity in contrast to the daily world of violence, the ultimate state of mind. Schopenhauer believes that a person who experiences the truth of human nature from a moral perspective — who appreciates how spatial and temporal forms of knowledge generate a constant passing away, continual suffering, vain striving and inner tension — will be so repulsed by the human condition, and by the pointlessly striving Will of which it is a manifestation, that he or she will lose the desire to affirm the objectified human situation in any of its manifestations.

The result is an attitude of denial towards our will-to-live, that Schopenhauer identifies with an ascetic attitude of renunciation, resignation, and willessness, but also with composure and tranquillity. In a manner reminiscent of traditional Buddhism, he recognizes that life is filled with unavoidable frustration, and acknowledges that the suffering caused by this frustration can itself be reduced by minimizing one’s desires. Moral consciousness and virtue thus give way to the voluntary poverty and chastity of the ascetic. St. Francis of Assisi (WWR, Section 68) and Jesus (WWR, Section 70) subsequently emerge as Schopenhauer’s prototypes for the most enlightened lifestyle, in conjunction with the ascetics from every religious tradition.

...the ascetic consciousness can be said symbolically to return Adam and Eve to Paradise, for it is the very quest for knowledge (i.e., the will to apply the principle of individuation to experience) that the ascetic overcomes. This amounts to a self-overcoming at the universal level, where not only physical desires are overcome, but where humanly-inherent epistemological dispositions are overcome as well. — SEP

Sits oddly with Schopenhauer's supposed atheism, but there it is. Incidentally, the 'repulsion' that is described in the first paragraph has an exact parallel in the Buddhist term nibbida.

What's really inconsistent to me is how Schopenhauer can vehemently reject the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, the source of the Judeo-Christian value system, while seeing no need to replace that value system with another.

Re: Schop's "value system" – Check out WWR, vol 1, books 3 & 4. (Summaries are found here.)

I think Schopenhauer saw Christianity as a holding on to life instead of a letting go towards death. Kant seemed to think that life was irrational in many ways (his antimonies) while Schelling, Fitche, and Hegel thought the world was logic (modern people now say the world is math). Schopenhauer thought the world irrational in many ways, returning to Kant, and thought preparing for death better than being attached to an idea of God and the creation one thinks God made. He was less Christian in this regard by saying we can't figure the world out because the will that governs is not rational

I think Schopenhauer saw Christianity as a holding on to life instead of a letting go towards death. — Gregory

Schopenhauer subscribed to the Judeo-Christian value system because it promoted the DENIAL, rather than the AFFIRMATION, of the WILL-to-LIVE. The highest form of concretely practicing this denial was Christian ASCETICISM. The ultimate goal of ascetic practices was the attainment of NOTHINGNESS. This constituted SALVATION for Schopenhauer. In this sense, Schopenhauer was a NIHILIST.

What's really inconsistent to me is how Schopenhauer can vehemently reject the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, the source of the Judeo-Christian value system, while seeing no need to replace that value system with another. — charles ferraro

Here's a recent thesis on Schopenhauer's philosophy of religion. Cleared up a lot for me.

Schopenhauer argues that philosophy and religion have the same fundamental aim: to satisfy “man’s need for metaphysics,” which is a “strong and ineradicable” instinct to seek explanations for existence that arises from “the knowledge of death, and therewith the consideration of the suffering and misery of life” (WWR I 161). Every system of metaphysics is a response to this realization of one’s finitude, and the function of those systems is to respond to that realization by letting individuals know their place in the universe, the purpose of their existence, and how they ought to act.

But, he says that the philosopher has no need for religion, not because he believes metaphysics to be empty (as positivists would say) but because he seeks to know, not simply to believe. He says that religion is acceptable for most people because they don't question deeply, they'll simply go along with what they're told. So he's not anti-religious in the sense that modern atheism is, he recognises that there is a kind of higher consciousness which is accessible through renunciation of the will.

The ultimate goal of ascetic practices was the attainment of NOTHINGNESS. This constituted SALVATION for Schopenhauer. In this sense, Schopenhauer was a NIHILIST. — charles ferraro

Not true. That the goal of ascetic practice is 'nothingness' is a myth. The 'emptiness' of Buddhism is not the annihilation in the sense of non-being, but the ending of the sense of self or ego. Hindus often accused Buddhists of nihilism on account of the latter's rejection of the Vedic gods, but the Buddha was not nihilistic and Nirvāṇa is not mere non-being.

There's a book about this, The Cult of Nothingness, Roger Pol-Droit.

This book traces the history of the Western discovery of Buddhism. In so doing, the author shows that such major philosophers as Schopenhaur, Nietzsche, Hegel, Cousin, and Renan imagined Buddhism as a religion that was, as Nietzsche put it, a "negation of the world." The author argues that such portrayals were more a reflection of what was happening in Europe at the time, when the collapse of traditional European hierarchies and values, the specter of atheism, the rise of racism and social revolts were shaking European societies. Argues this is still reflected in today's understanding of Buddhism in the west.

Yes, true! The ending of the self or ego is a synonym for the attainment of oblivion in any culture. Just another case of those culturally biased European geniuses. I suppose the Gnostic ascetics shared the same bias.

Not oblivion although you may be oblivious to it.

Schopenhauer was concerned with reducing suffering because our life goals are unattainable. It is good to have goals in life but narcissism is seen as the root of our problem. Christianity usually fosters the kind of narcissism that Buddhism warns against

This is pretty much the view of Boehme, and was picked up by Fichte and Hegel. I haven't read Schelling directly, but I believe his ideas fit here too based on secondary sources.

Schellings mix of mythology with philosophy in his mid career is interesting and under appreciated

Not true. That the goal of ascetic practice is 'nothingness' is a myth. The 'emptiness' of Buddhism is not the annihilation in the sense of non-being, but the ending of the sense of self or ego — Wayfarer

:up: Instead it is the attainment of being as a nobody, that is the goal - then one is free to follow the logic.

Anthropocentric identity is the obstacle to understanding, philosophy, enlightenment, etc. In protecting an identity, one has to protect the understanding that it is founded on, and so one is not free to explore logically, lest their exploration should undermine the understanding that supports their identity.

A nobody has no such problems.

Nihilism has caused more problems for the West than religion I think, but I promote neither. I try to pursue philosophy and encourage others to as well

Nihilism has caused more problems for the West than religion I think, — Gregory

How did you do that calculation? What do you count as nihilism?

Buddhism doesn't promote lack of meaning. The lack of meaning in life causes a lot of suffering in the West