Define "being"

@saiboimushi,

saiboimushi wrote:

What is "being"? Can one answer this question without a tautology? And if not, why?

Feel free to interrogate the assumptions behind these questions. I don't really mind how you approach the whole matter, as long as you can in some way satisfy my curiosity

saiboimushi. Smile

I would say being is life, is consciousness, it is that which experiences and that which reacts to its experience. Smile

Inanimate being is another story

@boagie,

This is an excellent beginning, and you may indeed have avoided a tautology. But if you are right, and being truly is consciousness, then what shall we say is consciousness?

@saiboimushi,

saiboimushi wrote:

This is an excellent beginning, and you may indeed have avoided a tautology. But if you are right, and being truly is consciousness, then what shall we say is consciousness?

saiboimushi,

Well the obvious would be consciouness is being, it is also perhaps a child of earth, a child of the inanimate, by which means the world is made aware of itself. Consciousness is reaction, organic beings do not act, they react to their environment, in some sense, it is the key that presumes its lock.

edit: Consciousness is reaction, A relational reaction is the seed or birth of consciousness you might say.

@saiboimushi,

saiboimushi wrote:

What is "being"? Can one answer this question without a tautology? And if not, why?

Feel free to interrogate the assumptions behind these questions. I don't really mind how you approach the whole matter, as long as you can in some way satisfy my curiosity

In the way you seem to be thinking of it, it is a term of art, a philosophical technical term: It is defined by the On-Line Dictionary as follows:

8.Philosophy. a.that which has actuality either materially or in idea. b.absolute existence in a complete or perfect state, lacking no essential characteristic; essence.

But what that all means is anybody's guess. Some philosophers, like the early 20th century philosopher, Meinong, used the term to include what he called both "existence" and "subsistence". "Existence" included tables and chairs, and ideas, but "subsistence" also included "things" like unicorns, square-circles, and Meinong's own favorite example, "the golden mountain". Both "things" that existed and subsisted, were said to have "Being". So that although the golden mountain does not exist, it subsists, and so, "has being". There are a number of confusions going on here. But Bertrand Russell's famous comment is most appropriate. He said that Meinong failed to have a "robust sense of reality".

@kennethamy,

The term "actuality" is also promising, but unfortunately "existence" and "essence" seem tautological to me. I want to find a predication of being that expands my understanding of it, rather than merely reiterating what I already understand (which is very little).

But "actuality" may bring some new information to the table. So what does it mean for something to be "actual"? What is actuality?

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

saiboimushi,

Well the obvious would be consciouness is being, it is also perhaps a child of earth, a child of the inanimate, by which means the world is aware of itself. Consciousness is reaction, beings do not act, they react to their environment, in some sense, it is the key which presumes its lock.

I would agree that consciousness is awareness. But what is awareness?

This whole issue is vexing.

@saiboimushi,

saiboimushi wrote:

The term "actuality" is also promising, but unfortunately "existence" and "essence" seem tautological to me. I want to find a predication of being that expands my understanding of it, rather than merely reiterating what I already understand (which is very little).

But "actuality" may bring some new information to the table. So what does it mean for something to be "actual"? What is actuality?

saiboimushi,

Actuality, to me means the manifest, that which has form and content, as apposed to the unmanifest which does not have form and content and is god to some people."What is awareness" The best I can do is to say it is subject and object known to itself as a singularity which is indivisable.

Do not conditions proceed the formation of a thing/being is this not to be actualized at a point in time of the process of becoming, which gives reality to substance.?

@saiboimushi,

saiboimushi wrote:

The term "actuality" is also promising, but unfortunately "existence" and "essence" seem tautological to me. I want to find a predication of being that expands my understanding of it, rather than merely reiterating what I already understand (which is very little).

But "actuality" may bring some new information to the table. So what does it mean for something to be "actual"? What is actuality?

Well, the term "actual" seems to mean either, "current", as in "the actual position of the ship seems to be 3 miles off Cape Hatteras", or it means, "real" as opposed to "apparent", as when someone asks, "Is 3:10 the actual time, because that clock has been running slow lately".

@saiboimushi,

Perhaps 'being' is... not 'doing'?

@saiboimushi,

I would like to offer another thought on the matter; a Cartesian thought.

"Being" is the existence of something which can be acted upon.

@saiboimushi,

being is the presence of consciousness and awareness in the infiniteness of existance

@saiboimushi,

saiboimushi wrote:

What is "being"?

The '-ing' indicates 'motion', a verb.
'Motion' is an illusion/mental product of Perspective; ie; a movie is really static motionless frames seen from a particular perspective, one at a time, linearly/temporally, in a particular order (again, perspective).
So, in answer to your question, I'd say that 'being' is an illusion of perspective, only existing in your thoughts/memory..
I don't think that that is a tautology.

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

The '-ing' indicates 'motion', a verb.
'Motion' is an illusion/mental product of Perspective; ie; a movie is really static motionless frames seen from a particular perspective, one at a time, linearly/temporally, in a particular order (again, perspective).
So, in answer to your question, I'd say that 'being' is an illusion of perspective, only existing in your thoughts/memory..
I don't think that that is a tautology.

nameless,

You say that "-ing" implies motion, and motion is illusory. Therefore, "being is an illusion of perspective, only existing in your thoughts/memory. . ." But then, what do you mean by "existing" in our thoughts? Would the existence of it in our thoughts be an "illusion" also? So, now our thoughts are mere "illusions," just like motion and being? But what does it mean for a thought to be an illusion?

I'm afraid that all that just doesn't do it for me. '-ing' doesn't necessarily indicate motion. Take for instance the words "standing," "unmoving," etc. "-ing" merely indicates a process, an event whose truth value is "true" for more than one consecutive time coordinate.

So, back to the original question. I think it depends on what kind of things your talking about. I haven't considered the question very much, but right now I might venture to agree with Berkeley: "being" (at least in the case of things other than myself), means having the potential to be perceived. "Being" for myself, though, is another matter. I think I would say that "being" means "to interact with a reality." I'm not sure whether "interact" would be simple perceiving or if it would involve actual choice. Or maybe perception itself involves choice.

I said "being for things other than myself" and "being for myself" because I suggest that in order to discuss this at all, we must speak only in terms of ourselves and whatever is not ourselves. For, to me, there is logically, spatially, and temporally no difference between you or Bob or Jessica and this table, computer, or pen. What it means for you to "be" with regard to my experience is different than what it means for you to "be" with regard to your own experience.

I'm certainly an amateur at philosophy, so I hope that came out intelligible.

@nemosum,

Nemosum,

Nameless was making an argument from etymology. He is making a good argument too. Even though we often do not realise the origin of our choice of words, but the meaning of the words is often much better understood by its etymology. By an examination of the etymology we see that the evolution of a language is dictated by the wrongfull use of the language in question. The meaning of words is often so twisted that one suspects hermeneutics around every corner. "Be-ing" in the sense Nameless points out really is an illusion. Perhaps "existance" is a better word for what you (and I untill now) use "being". Smile

@Arjen,

Arjen wrote:

Nemosum,

Nameless was making an argument from etymology. He is making a good argument too. Even though we often do not realise the origin of our choice of words, but the meaning of the words is often much better understood by its etymology. By an examination of the etymology we see that the evolution of a language is dictated by the wrongfull use of the language in question. The meaning of words is often so twisted that one suspects hermeneutics around every corner. "Be-ing" in the sense Nameless points out really is an illusion. Perhaps "existance" is a better word for what you (and I untill now) use "being".

Forgive my ignorance. I'm familiar with etymology, but not with hermeneutics. However, I'm still not sure that '-ing' really does imply motion. I don't think it comes from Latin, and I'm not knowledgeable in Germanic and Anglo-Saxon roots. If someone could enlighten me, that would be nice Smile

Also, I owe an apology to Nameless for mistakenly using a strawman. . . at least I think I did. Sorry.

@saiboimushi,

I believe that there is a triune too being - Thought, Feeling and Emotion. This assembledge interprets what we hear, sense and see, and so works closely together too engender a consciouness, which gives birth to an awareness of the physcal realm of being. An inanimate thing simply is being, in relation to our awareness of it existing
in a shared moment with our conscious existence of self.

@nameless,

Okay, l define being a soul, spirit,consince, (sorry can't spell the word at the moment) the state of being, as in who we are presently, not what we were in the womb and not after death, unless you want to get into spirits and ghosts

@Chell,

I interpret soul and spirit to be a euthinism for the essence or source of consciouness, in some respect I percieve it as being correct; in that these are profound words to capture or embody the intangible, elusive nature of the heart, which is the core of being.

@soullight,

l would say that the spirit and the soul are the core of the being myself but only because l had an experience in losing someone and it was like part of losing myself, but l felt her spirit and soul leaving me, the moment she died

Philosophy Forum

Define "being"

Quick Links

My Account

able2know