I remember years ago in a current continental philosophy class, being was described as that which could interact with another. I remember this struck me as odd, because "a" being always had to be identified in relation to "another". I remember not liking it at the time, but there was something undeniably powerful about the statement.

Having gained more knowledge over the years, I think there must always be another for "being", because something can only know what it interacts with. While in theory, there could be a single entity of "some thing", it would forever be unknown to anything. If a being falls in a forest of nothingness, it makes no sound.

A being is what exists, and we can only define what we are able to glean exists. We do this through some form of interaction, indirect, or direct. So beings will always be known in their interactions with other. For our purposes, it is when we can define a meaningful enough "thing" that creates an observable unique interaction from what is around it. The word "being" is a generic word meant to capture this concept. Words like "being" are formulas that can expand or contract as we shorten or widen the scope.

If you are looking for a definition of being that fits all scopes, then "that which interacts with something besides itself" is about all you can get. If that is unsatisfying, that is the nature of broadly scoped generalities. They have a very small sense of truth that will endure through more narrowly defined scopes, but will rarely reveal anything meaningful or useful for specific circumstances.

Interesting. I'm still trying to understand why it matters at all what anyone's understanding of being is. What can it do for us?

Is red a thing? — Manuel

Is it no-thing? I would say it's something. It "is."

Having gained more knowledge over the years, I think there must always be another for "being", because something can only know what it interacts with. — Philosophim

This may be true for beings, but seems unlikely for being, which is not itself a being. Beings are individual entities, and are numerous.

I'm still trying to understand why it matters at all what anyone's understanding of being is. What does it can it do for us? — Tom Storm

This is a good question. "Who gives a damn?" Well, for me it's getting at the basic assumptions that underlie our modern world. It would be as if we're discussing the nature of God in the middle ages -- something nearly everyone just "knew," and to question would seem rather absurd. In today's "secular" age, religions of course still exist, but there are other dogmas afoot -- even in science. (The belief in the results of science, for example, has largely "replaced," in some respects, the faith in gods.)

Still -- so what? It helps make sense of the world, of people in the world, of the beliefs, values, choices, and behavior of these people -- up to and including those in power, who control humanity's future and fate. I think capitalism, for example, can ultimately be seen as an outgrowth of this long philosophical (ontological) tradition.

Still -- so what? It helps make sense of the world, of people in the world, of the beliefs, values, choices, and behavior of these people -- up to and including those in power, who control humanity's future and fate. I think capitalism, for example, can ultimately be seen as an outgrowth of this long philosophical (ontological) tradition. — Xtrix

So how does examining 'being' accomplish so much? Can you provide an applied example?

So only that which is labeled "is"? — Xtrix

I am sorry you didn't get the joke about formal logic.
There are no objects without properties.

When you say that two and two is four, what sense of ‘is’ does that refer to?

In saying that such questions are ill-formed, I'm pointing out that they do not ask anything; or at least if it does mean something, the answer will be a list of things. — Banno

I agree by and large. The negative formulation certainly highlights the absurdity of the question to me. As Aristotle said, there can be no science of being because it's an all-encompassing category.

In the sentence "the cat is on the mat", "is" seems to function as a grammatical placeholder. We feel deprived if there is no verb, so we invent a verb of inactivity to hold the place in a sentence without any action the way zero holds the place where there are no tens or units or whatever.

1. The cat is sitting on the mat.
2. The cat on the mat is sitting.
3. The sitting cat is on the mat.
4. The cat is on the mat, sitting.
5. The cat sitting on the mat is ...

And this grammatical function is becoming confused with the relation between object and idea.

An architect makes plans of a house that does not exist. Sometimes his idea of a house is realised, and sometimes not, according to the whim of the planning dept. Architects are haunted by invisible incorporeal buildings - that's the job. Humans are driven by ideas that they try to realise; they dig and sow they build, they forage they form governments; they live always haunted by demons that do not exist. The chef is haunted by his menu, the carpenter by her furniture drawings, the tailor by her jacket pattern; everyone is busy realising their ideas as best they can. everyone is haunted by what is not, {yet}.

What is being, with a small "b"? In my book, it's, very loosely speaking, properties: An apple is red; the apple, being red, is red.

What is Being, with an uppercase "B"? Being includes, in addition to being (properties) that which possesses said properties. The red apple is Being. — TheMadFool

It is very hard to have a discussion when the words are used in different ways. 'Being' and 'existence' are often confused with each other. It has to do with the difference between the 'presence' or something as opposed to nothing which I call 'existence'. It is also known as necessary existence. Being is evolved and contingent. It is more than existence because it is evolved. Existence is the void, the no-thing. No-thing is no created thing as opposed to nothingness which is non existence.

It is very hard to have a discussion when the words are used in different ways. 'Being' and 'existence' are often used confused with each other. It has to do with the difference between the 'presence' or something as opposed to nothing which I call 'existence'. It is also known as necessary existence. Being is evolved and contingent. It is more than existence because it is evolved. Existence is the void, the no-thing. No-thing is no created thing as opposed to nothingness which is non existence. — EnPassant

Interesting! It makes sense...in a weird way. Your view is, let's just say, rather unconventional, counterintuitive, yes that's the right word. I lost count of the number of times our intuition was proven wrong. That reminds me...

It makes sense...in a weird way. — TheMadFool

For me it is fairly simple if we can agree to read from the same page. In the beginning as have a lump of bronze (existence: that which is). The bronze is cast in the shape of a horse or an eagle or whatever. This is being.

There seems to be 3 levels of existence.

1. The positive, necessary existence that is. The uncreated void which is existence.

2. Contingent things: stars, planets, rocks, the physical universe. These are said to be contingent because they depend on a previous state; existence. Existence becomes these things.

3. Life and consciousness, which are the most evolved form of being.

I prefer "being" rather than "existence," although I do use both occasionally. To say being is eternal or has other properties is a mistake, in my view. It's one interpretation, yes, but is confusing being with a being (with an entity). — Xtrix

There is such a confusion of semantics when it comes to this subject. It is necessary to agree on the meaning of words. For me existence is the primordial, eternal positive that is. Being is evolved existence.

In the beginning there is existence. Existence is not a property of anything, it simply is, eternally. It is what is. Existence has properties. — EnPassant

If existence is eternal then what do you mean by beginning? If existence simply is then what could its properties be? Without time, how can existence evolve into anything else?

The positive, necessary existence that is. The uncreated void which is existence. — EnPassant

That's the problem right there. How does Parmenides distinguish what must necessarily be, given the distinction he makes between Being and being, a "something" devoid of any and all properties that just is, no more no less, and nothing?

:)

Being for Heidegger (Of Being and Time) is the meaningful presence of something. Ontical aspect here is that there is something concretely, there is some concrete being, and ontological aspect is the Being of that being, which gives sense to that being so that it can manifest as something. Being is the transcendental dimension that makes particular empirical beings possible. But it is not anything logical or theoretical as with Kant and to some extent with Husserl. Being is the complicated relations of the "live" significations making a "world" as well as the understanding, emotional subjectivity carrying these relations. "Irrational" (personal-historical) "dynamics" are involved there too unlike with Kant or Husserl.

Transcendental point of view is a good, more traditional way to gain access to Heidegger. That is, Being is the transcendental "worlding" (a verb) that makes beings possible. In Being and Time are described the structures of that transcendental complex of relations (not tr. logic) that makes existence or living (not theoretical knowing) in the world possible.

Temporality is the sense of the Being or truth of the Being (mentioned above). When questioned what "is" (the world and the existence in it constituting) Being itself or as such, answer is that Being "is" time or that Being "yields" ("zeitigt", Time = Zeit) or "produces" (more or less transient or enduring presences making up the Being of the world). Temporality is a kind of a pure becoming or nothingness only that the moment of present produces certain stability or persistence or actual beingness to it. Selfhood is not possible without the presence. If temporality were pure becoming there would be no presence at all, only past and future? Heidegger's relation to presence is somewhat ambiguous. "Historical presence" as the world (relative stability of the being-there-ness of the various references or significations; the problem of the selfhood) is something positive or necessary whereas ideal presence or abstract repetition is derivative and negative?

Thank you.
Unfortunately, I cannot follow easily the analyses by and about the mentioned (and other) philosophers anymore, as I could in the distant past (when I had the patience and eagerness to study them). :sad:

Xtrix edited away the reference to Kant and temporality?

In connection with the "ecstasies" (hasbeen, present, forthcoming) of temporality H. talks about "schemas" which is of course a Kantian term. For Kant the temporality or temporal schemes were mediating between "Being" or categories and beings or empirical. Through the temporality the categories or concepts of understanding received intuitional content and were linked to the empirical world. For Heidegger temporality provides a "dynamic horizontality" through which the Being as ontological constitutes the ontical beings. Hereby the traditional ontology is related to the (empirical) historicity and receives a new meaning. Later "Heydegger" doesn't no more use the term ontology. On the other hand, he does use the expression "ontological difference" (which, the difference between Being and beings, is still a central idea for him.)

That's the problem right there. How does Parmenides distinguish what must necessarily be, given the distinction he makes between Being and being, a "something" devoid of any and all properties that just is, no more no less, and nothing? — TheMadFool

There is a distinction between nothingness and no-thing. Nothingness is absolute nothing. It is so vacuous it is not even there. It is not even an 'it' because if it were an it, it would be something. Nothingness is not.

No-thing is no contingent/created thing. The void. The eternal positive that is existence/God. (What Heidegger calls Being).

Existence/God becomes, by evolving into being. God becomes the living God. This is consciousness.

Now what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? — Carl Sagan (The Demon-Haunted World)

Yes, indeed! We need to work on the definition of "exist" and "existence". Wanna give it a shot?

Yes, indeed! We need to work on the definition of "exist" and "existence". Wanna give it a shot — TheMadFool

Existence is the eternal positive. Existence cannot be a property of any previous state.

Proof

Assume X has the property 'existence'. We assume X and existence are two distinct entities, otherwise X is existence and there is nothing to prove.

Now ask the question 'Does X, as a distinct entity, exist?' There are two answers-

1. X exists: In this case existence as a property of X is superfluous whence X is existence.

2. X does not exist: It is incoherent to say a non existent X has properties.

This means existence is not a property, even a property of God. Therefore existence is God. God becomes. This is being, which is evolved existence. God is existence and being. But existence is a prerequisite for being. This is the Cosmological Argument - first necessary existence then contingent creation/being.

Ok, ok!

I only capitalized "Being" because it's in the title. — Xtrix

OK. But I still find the question/subject ambiguous, since you did not agree with my "What does 'being' mean?" interpretation ...

You describe being as "apparency," as truth and fact, as persisting in time and agreed to be "real." There's a lot there to unpack! — Xtrix

:grin: I have the habit to clarify my thoughs as better as possible in the first place so thet there are the least possible misundestandings and doubts about them. What I have added after a first description are attributes of "being".

So being is that which is real, true, factual? — Xtrix

No, not at all! It is that which apparently is real, etc. My stress was on the word "apparency", since the beginning. It seems that dispite of all the things I said, I have not said enough to clarify that! :grin: APPARENCY: "The quality or state of being apparent". APPARENT: "Appearing as actual to the eye or mind. (Both from Merriam-Webster)

It sounds to me like what you're describing are substances with properties which we may agree upon — Xtrix

Right. Although I would use the word "substances"; it's too restrictive.

when you say "This tree is big," or "My name is Alkis," what we're asking about is the "is." — Xtrix

I said that the statement "This tree is big", contains two "is"es, existences: 1) There is a tree (it is implied) and 2) it is big. (1) refers to the existence of the tree itself and (2) to an attribute of the tree, which has its own existence, in a different context: "is big", implies that there exist trees that are big and/or that the attribute "big" itself has its own existence, in general.

But from all that, one thing is the most essential: That "is-ness" is an apparency of existence.

Why would you give the "thumbs-up" to the voice of ignorance? — Janus

Ah now, you've hurt my feelings.

And why? I've already acknowledged that I haven't been initiated in the cult of Heidegger, and so you should expect I'm unable to interpret him; no, perhaps "experience" or "encounter" him is more appropriate.

All I've said is that he was capable of clarity even to the uninitiated, and this is indisputable, I think. For example, from a letter to his brother:

With each day that passes we see Hitler growing as a statesman. The world of our Volk and Reich is about to be transformed and everyone who has eyes with which to watch, ears with which to listen, and a heart to spur him into action will find himself captivated by genuine, deep excitement—once again, we are met with a great reality and with the pressure of having to build this reality into the spirit of the Reich and the secret mission of the German being […]

He even uses "being"! The German being has a "secret mission" but perhaps you already knew that. I confess I find that unclear, though suggestive. Is "being" here a thing, a German thing?

And who can forget this perfectly unambiguous statement: The Fuhrer himself and he alone is German reality and its law, today and for the future.

Is it no-thing? I would say it's something. It "is." — Xtrix

It's not a thing, it's a quality. It "is not", if predicated about the world, not about our way of interpreting it.

That's a bit private-language, isn't it - that there is a what it is like for me for that thing to be a pencil... or some such nonsense.

As if he were to say that the private meaning of "Pencil" changes as the pencil goes blunt with use.

But there isn't a private meaning. There's only your asking to borrow my sharpener — Banno

Wittgenstein did not make use always personal. Quite the opposite. Use is inherently social. — Banno

I don’t think Anthony would agree with the distinction you’re making between the private and the public for Wittgenstein, as witnessed by his discussion of the personal experience of pain in the absence of others. (One can show to oneself). Neither would a number of other Wittgenstein interpreters. For instance, Phil Hutchinson says:

“ “In short, Baker's post -1990 ‘position'—expounded throughout BWM—is that Wittgenstein's method is radically therapeutic: therapeutic in that the aim is to relieve mental cramps brought about by being faced with a seemingly intractable philosophical problem; radically so in that how this aim is achieved is person relative, occasion sensitive and context dependent.”

And who can forget this perfectly unambiguous statement: The Fuhrer himself and he alone is German reality and its law, today and for the future — Ciceronianus

Have you read any biographies of Heidegger? It sure doesn’t sound like it from your superficial attacks on him. Even though I’m quite invested in his philosophy, I don’t mind even the most bellicose condemnations of his political activities. But yours just aren’t interesting. If you’re going to prove to us he’s the villain you believe him to be , put a little effort into it. Everybody knows the basics facts , his declaration of allegiance to Hitler , etc. that you’re simply regurgitating.
But where are the quotes from those who knew him best , especially his Jewish friends? What makes his politics interesting are such details as the fact that he wasn’t particularly anti-semitic compared to the larger culture. Wittgenstein, a Jew, was at least as anti-semitic as Heidegger.
If you can’t participate in a philosophy forum on the philosophy of Heidegger , at least give us a substantive historical-biographical analysis.

So how does examining 'being' accomplish so much? Can you provide an applied example? — Tom Storm

Heidegger is trying to offer an alternative to causal
logics. You can answer our own question by turning it around. How does formal and empirically causal logic accomplish so much? I can’t offer an applied example of Heidegger’s new logic without first introducing you to the ideas from which to derive an application. As far as I’m concerned , there is no shortcut to reading Being and Time, although you could attempt secondary sources.

Being for Heidegger (Of Being and Time) is the meaningful presence of something. Ontical aspect here is that there is something concretely, there is some concrete being, and ontological aspect is the Being of that being, which gives sense to that being so that it can manifest as something. Being is the transcendental dimension that makes particular empirical beings possible — waarala

This sounds a lot more like Kant than Heidegger (Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind). Understood most primordially, there is no presence of something objective, no empirical being. The transcendental basis of Being is not an idealism ala Kant but the transcendent as transit and transformation.

Temporality is a kind of a pure becoming or nothingness only that the moment of present produces certain stability or persistence or actual beingness to it. Selfhood is not possible without the presence. If temporality were pure becoming there would be no presence at all, only past and future? — waarala

There is no moment of presence, alongside a moment of future and past. These together form one moment of occurrence. Selfhood for Heidegger isnt presence to self but a relation of change. Temporality is pure becoming, not because there is no present, but because present, past and future belong to the same moment, as movement.

Thanks Joshs.

As far as I’m concerned , there is no shortcut to reading Being and Time, although you could attempt secondary sources. — Joshs

I'm sure you are right.

, I don't see how what you have said here helps.

Everybody knows the basics facts , his declaration of allegiance to Hitler , etc. that you’re simply regurgitating. — Joshs

Indeed, such stuff is easy to find. Why?

Heidegger’s Feeble Excuses

The Trouble with Martin

In summary, what we find in this first volume of Heidegger’s Black Notebooks to be translated into English is an angry, disillusioned philosopher who tirelessly laments the cultural, political and spiritual destitution of his day. He sees little hope for the university, for philosophy, for the German people, or for the world in general. We are left with a picture of a spiteful, petty man whose professional and political ambitions had been severely dented, and who felt the slights all the more keenly owing to a rather unrestrained Messianic complex.

Mahon O’Brien

The picture on that page says enough.