Define "being"

@Chell,

Perhaps we should clarify what kind of "being" we're talking about.

Some seem to be talking about mere existence.

Some seem to be talking about a sort of choice-making or living process.

About which was the question first asked?

Also, there have been a few comments that have made distinctions between existence for an animate object and an inanimate one. While these distinctions can be very good, it is important to realize that, if we are talking about mere existence in general, then for me, the experiential difference between you and a rock is very little. The only differences between animate and inanimate objects in experience is that one moves and one doesn't. Besides that, all meaning we ascribe to various objects such as friends and family are meanings chosen post-experience.

The bottom line is, your "being" and a house's "being" are fundamentally that same from my own perspective.

But if we're talking about "being" for conscious, self-aware entities in general, then perhaps it does involve some sort of interaction with the world.

In that case, I have a question: does the interaction have to be positive action? Do I stop "being" every time I sit down to vegg in front of the movie screen? I guess this goes back to boagie's other question: is there any sort of positive action at all?

@Chell,

The spirit or soul in my understading of these terms represents emotion, which is an incredible power, especially at a time of loss; particularly when we lose someone that we have grown accustomed too. When we lose someone that we love, it is terminal, all memories and feelings will induce strong emotions.
That part of us that is used to our loved ones always being there breakes down, to the point of grdually accepting the realization that they have gone. Some choose to see this as a departing of the soul or spirit in comfort of knowing that they have gone to a better place. I'm sorry if I have offended you, but this is how I interpret these terms.

@soullight,

No, Soul light you did not offend me at all, l had to go get dinner and do some other things and l feel bad l did not answer as soon as you posted , but no, you did not know, how could you have.
l would not have said anything had it bothered me because that is for me a tender spot, but no after 14 yrs and counselling, l am getting better. l do have survivor guilt because l am alive and she is dead, but time heals all wounds and she truly is better off then if she were alive, she was born brain dead due to a Dr.s mistake at the Riverside Hospital in Ottawa and l don't know if any of you remember a lawsuit brought on , but l was one of the parents suing the Dr.s there for negligence and malpractice and the Dr. was having too good a time at an office Christmas party then to listen to the distress calls the nurse and resident were all calling about, so my daughter suffered at his hands when he finally came up and panicked and the booze in his system , l guess made him feel like superman but he pressed on my uterus like a balloon, except, it was not, it was holding my daughter and when it burst, she went up under my lungs and going without any oxgen for 2 hrs. and l was almost drowning in the amniotic fluid, so the moment she died, the nurse said she got so scared because that was the moment the baby's heart stopped and l saw this white transparent light for a flicker of a second above me and l just felt her leave my body and told them.
A mother knows, l just told the anethiastist to let me die along with her, but they saved me.

l know someone is going to ask , and it is normal to want to know so l thought l will post it now as you are all getting to know me and l am able to talk about it now soulmate, 10 yrs ago, l was a complete mess, but now l am getting better because l am finally getting the treatment l kept asking for for the past 3

~~In Memory of Taylor Courteny Anne Born 23/12/93 and died on life support donating her heart on 27/12/93~~

@nemosum,

nemosum wrote:

I think I would say that "being" means "to interact with a reality."

'Interact' is not a word indicating 'motion'? 'Act'?
Exactly who would be 'interacting' with what 'reality'.
Is that which 'interacts' something other than that 'reality'? 'Illusion'?

@nameless,

Perhaps 'Being' is the appearance of us Perspectives whereby existence (Mind) manifests.

@nameless,

Our "being" is nothing more than our conscious perception of this reality. That's it. There's nothing magical going on here, sorry to burst everyone's bubble.

There is no exposition of a person, no soul. We are animals with the ability to reason. And while this seems like we should apply some type of "uniqueness" to our species, we really shouldn't. We have no more of a "being" than a squirrel, or that stop sign.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Our "being" is nothing more than our conscious perception of this reality. That's it. There's nothing magical going on here, sorry to burst everyone's bubble.

There is no exposition of a person, no soul. We are animals with the ability to reason. And while this seems like we should apply some type of "uniqueness" to our species, we really shouldn't. We have no more of a "being" than a squirrel, or that stop sign.

Zetherin,

I would say, at least one could make a distinction between life as being and that of inanimate being, as experience, we are the consciousness of the world. I however agree, we are not terriably unique in this ability to experience the world, and we do not stand on the top of some evolutionary ladder, king of the hill.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Zetherin,

I would say, at least one could make a distinction between life as being and that of inanimate being, as experience, we are the consciousness of the world. I however agree, we are not terriably unique in this ability to experience the world, and we do not stand on the top of some evolutionary ladder, king of the hill.

The problem is, the only person that we can be convinced is actually conscious is ourself. And even knowing if we are conscious, or even part of "life", is highly debatable. So, the distinction between being conscious and being that inanimate being may be deeper than it appears.

As it appears, we are the consciousness of the world, through own consciousness, I'd agree.

@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

That is which cannot be denied. Reality exists on evidence. Evidence is supplied by the senses.

@nameless,

Nothing defines Being. Definition is an attempt to limit a subject. The only thing that can limit Being is "nothing". As all of you have guess, nothing nothings. Hence you can not add something in the knowledge of Being that will not includes itself. Tautology. Its unescapable.

@midas77,

:)Are we talking about being as the self, the personality and/or in the form of personal identity? Being I would say is an ability to experience the world. If it is really identity of which we speak, identity is formed through experience's discretion and exclusion of all things it deems other.

@midas77,

midas77 wrote:

Nothing defines Being. Definition is an attempt to limit a subject. The only thing that can limit Being is "nothing". As all of you have guess, nothing nothings. Hence you can not add something in the knowledge of Being that will not includes itself. Tautology. Its unescapable.

One side of being, Existence cannot be concieved, so it cannot be defined. On the near end of being, life is purely phenomenal to all that know life, and life cannot be defined except in the most general or subjective terms. In between these two extremes is reality, from the word, Res, meaning: thing. We cannot fully define reality because we cannot define its two ends fully. That does not mean we cannot give some definition to reality, or know something of it. It is the only facet of being of which we can know anything in an objective sense, since others share reality as a phenomenon. Thanks.

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

One side of being, Existence cannot be concieved, so it cannot be defined. On the near end of being, life is purely phenomenal to all that know life, and life cannot be defined except in the most general or subjective terms. In between these two extremes is reality, from the word, Res, meaning: thing. We cannot fully define reality because we cannot define its two ends fully. That does not mean we cannot give some definition to reality, or know something of it. It is the only facet of being of which we can know anything in an objective sense, since others share reality as a phenomenon. Thanks.

On side of being, Existence... What is the other side then, "non-existence?"

Existence can not be conceived....Do you mean we can not know it? We have an immediate apprehension of Existence. Existence eludes definition because any predication we subscribe to it will contain itself, hence tautology.

I'm using the term definition in the way classical logic uses them, that is to set the boundary to the subject by means of predication. WE can know Being but we can not define it. Definition is not the only means for acquiring knowledge. In logic it is called, simple apprehension.

@saiboimushi,

i think for the most part we think of being as a finite entity, and as such we apply the term being to ourselves. But in my view being includes the totality of what you are. Which includes what you know and what you do and where your are and where you do things, because what you are includes what you do and know and many other unfathomable things. So being is the totality of ones own existence.

@vajrasattva,

vajrasattva wrote:

i think for the most part we think of being as a finite entity, and as such we apply the term being to ourselves. But in my view being includes the totality of what you are. Which includes what you know and what you do and where your are and where you do things, because what you are includes what you do and know and many other unfathomable things. So being is the totality of ones own existence.

vajrasattva, Smile

In trying to make a visual out of it, would it be fair to say, that if one invisioned a large transparent cube, representing a complexity of your relations, with you imbeded wihin this transparent cube of your history and relations spanning out in all directions similtaneously, you are the centre, yet you are the full context of your own universe. Very Happy

Your it! That would be the vision of the wiseman of the mountaintop.:cool:

@boagie,

It seems we are talking of different "beings". I subscribe to Martin Heidegger's basic differentiation of being=entities or things, Being=that which makes all beings being. Another meaning of being that seems to surface in this 4 pages thread is the being as in my well-being which i see as consciousness.

vajrasattva, there is one part of Indian Philosophy I really like. The Athman-Brahman view of the "universe". When we inquire outside what we end up with is Brahman, the Ultimate Thing, and we inquire inside, what we see is Athman, the Ultimate self. That philosophical concept is very very old but I am really mesmerized by the beauty of it. To think of it, the very foundation of reality is in actuality is the very root to which my self is made, enthralls me.

@midas77,

midas77 wrote:

It seems we are talking of different "beings". I subscribe to Martin Heidegger's basic differentiation of being=entities or things, Being=that which makes all beings being. Another meaning of being that seems to surface in this 4 pages thread is the being as in my well-being which i see as consciousness.

vajrasattva, there is one part of Indian Philosophy I really like. The Athman-Brahman view of the "universe". When we inquire outside what we end up with is Brahman, the Ultimate Thing, and we inquire inside, what we see is Athman, the Ultimate self. That philosophical concept is very very old but I am really mesmerized by the beauty of it. To think of it, the very foundation of reality is in actuality is the very root to which my self is made, enthralls me.

Yeah, there seems to be a battle of semantics more than anything else! Wink

@midas77,

midas77 wrote:

It seems we are talking of different "beings". I subscribe to Martin Heidegger's basic differentiation of being=entities or things, Being=that which makes all beings being. Another meaning of being that seems to surface in this 4 pages thread is the being as in my well-being which i see as consciousness.

vajrasattva, there is one part of Indian Philosophy I really like. The Athman-Brahman view of the "universe". When we inquire outside what we end up with is Brahman, the Ultimate Thing, and we inquire inside, what we see is Athman, the Ultimate self. That philosophical concept is very very old but I am really mesmerized by the beauty of it. To think of it, the very foundation of reality is in actuality is the very root to which my self is made, enthralls me.

Ah serbcribe to Popeye's tangent: that if yers eat beings, theys make ya fart. Sa thair.

@nameless,

I believe that Heidegger says something like...

being is a thing that has an issue with it's own existence...

I don't disagree.

@Fido,

Fido, depends on what being you eat, I mean the fart will certainly smells differently.

Philosophy Forum

Define "being"

Quick Links

My Account

able2know