Define "being"

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Fido
 
Reply Tue 17 Jun, 2008 05:24 am
@midas77,
midas77 wrote:
Fido, depends on what being you eat, I mean the fart will certainly smells differently.

Noses smell, and farts stink. Didn't you learn that in church?
 
midas77
 
Reply Sat 21 Jun, 2008 06:49 am
@as0l0,
as0l0 wrote:
I believe that Heidegger says something like...

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

I don't disagree.


I think, you are reffering to Heidegger;s Dasein. Dasein is only part of the totality of Beings. The only being that is concern with his Being. in simple word. Man.
 
Paracelsus
 
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 04:33 am
@nameless,
Are you defining being as a state? And if you are then is Being the functional presence of consciousness.

Or are you defining Being as the action of an (social) actor with particular ends?
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 06:05 am
@Paracelsus,
Paracelsus wrote:
Are you defining being as a state? And if you are then is Being the functional presence of consciousness.

Or are you defining Being as the action of an (social) actor with particular ends?

From the point of view of human beings, and there is no other, being is both a state and a condition we call life. Life depends upon matter, but all depends upon life. Without life we can give no meaning to existence on any level. So we might well say so long as we live that much is with little meaning, that nothing has meaning without our lives so that life is the equal of meaning, and so meaning is the essense of being.
 
boagie
 
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 11:21 am
@Fido,
Smile
Being is a relation within a system of relations, which it experiences as consciousness/reaction.
 
Paracelsus
 
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 03:21 pm
@Fido,
Fido;16833 wrote:
so that life is the equal of meaning, and so meaning is the essense of being.

I dont want to sound like a semiotic gorilla but essence is a quality or if you will an attribute of being, meaning is something we generate in the process of our existence, as much as i admire the ethical life i would not define ethics as the function and purpose of being. Ethics provide a moral light house in a sea of absurdity eg the current state of the world.

Being is the state of conscious perception which allows the individual to interact with other sentient beings to engage and experience life.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 03:53 pm
@Paracelsus,
One could argue that the whole idea of being inheres 100% in its linguistic use. Bertrand Russell pointed out that there were several sub-definitions of the verb "to be", including predication (i.e. fire IS hot) and existence (there IS a mountain). So "being" is a linguistic phenomenon first that relates subject / predicate or describes existence vs nonexistence.

VideCorSpoon could probably elaborate further.
 
Paracelsus
 
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 05:01 pm
@Aedes,
Language is the tool by which we are able to articulate our thoughts, this is not to deny the body as a totality and the affect that emotional or affective states experienced by the body have upon our mind. And should we believe that consciousness resides only in the mind?

Are feelings the consciousness of the body?( this could be new thread?)

If we perceive that perception is a function of the body which then allows the brain, does mind reside in the brain?, to formulate a response to both external stimulus and internal states then Being is both a state and an act.

Foucault stated that discourse constitutes its object, and if language is a function of being then the act of engaging in discursive practice enables being to be expressed and defined by its acts.

I have not studied Heidegger, Sein und Ziet its something on my current to do list, and correct me if i am wrong, but didn't he state that (our) Being is only recognised by the recognition/acknowledgement of other Being's?

But this i would imagine raises another question is being a function of Self? And if that is the case how then do we define Self?
 
as0l0
 
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 05:15 pm
@midas77,
midas77 wrote:
I think, you are reffering to Heidegger;s Dasein. Dasein is only part of the totality of Beings. The only being that is concern with his Being. in simple word. Man.


I was hoping someone would correct that for me, so thankyou. Regarding the issue though, is my dog concerned by the fact that he is a dog?

Perhaps a question for another day...
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 06:50 pm
@Paracelsus,
Paracelsus wrote:
I dont want to sound like a semiotic gorilla but essence is a quality or if you will an attribute of being, meaning is something we generate in the process of our existence, as much as i admire the ethical life i would not define ethics as the function and purpose of being. Ethics provide a moral light house in a sea of absurdity eg the current state of the world.

Being is the state of conscious perception which allows the individual to interact with other sentient beings to engage and experience life.

If you are saying that for people, being is life, well, yes. But life is different from any other form of being. We have to be made by living beings to have life. Life is not only a quality we have, but one we must share. And in relation to life all things have a value, a meaning in relation to their effect upon life. These things we find meaningful do not have meaning on their own, and we do not generate meaning. We recognize life in what supports life, and hold it highly valuable. We find no meaning in all that does not, in some sense, support life, and we find a negative meaning in that which endangers life. Ethics is one of those qualities concieved only of meaning because as a consideration, ethics support life. Since meaning is insepparable from life, so that one implies the other, I think it is pointless to try to talk of one without the other. Being is meaning, and when the matter of life, our meat, and our motation is removed from us all that is left that is common to all life is meaning. Certainly consciousness as we consider it is not common to all life. And still it has meaning.
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 07:07 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
One could argue that the whole idea of being inheres 100% in its linguistic use. Bertrand Russell pointed out that there were several sub-definitions of the verb "to be", including predication (i.e. fire IS hot) and existence (there IS a mountain). So "being" is a linguistic phenomenon first that relates subject / predicate or describes existence vs nonexistence.

VideCorSpoon could probably elaborate further.

For human beings, being is living, and given the general preference people show for keeping their lives near and dear my bet is that at the point of losing life you will not be thinking of it linguistically. Let me try this another way. Language is a means of idealizing reality, abstracting it, if you will, and every abstraction must actually point to some reality or it is not an idea, abstraction, notion or concept. It is impossible for any phenomenon to be a linguistic phenomenon before it is a phenomenon in reality, and the word means: to show. If it were known, it could be told of, that is, identified. When identification is uncertain it can be shared first hand, pointed out, but not concieved of, that is, abstracted, by language or other means. Life is always phenomenal. No one can actually concieve of life. Each is like no other, and no one can be certain theirs is like anothers in any respect. We think all life is the same, and science generally support that idea; but no life is the same as another, so it is phenomenal.
 
Paracelsus
 
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 07:18 pm
@Fido,
Fido;16903 wrote:
If you are saying that for people, being is life, well, yes. But life is different from any other form of being. We have to be made by living beings to have life. Life is not only a quality we have, but one we must share. And in relation to life all things have a value, a meaning in relation to their effect upon life. These things we find meaningful do not have meaning on their own, and we do not generate meaning. We recognize life in what supports life, and hold it highly valuable. We find no meaning in all that does not, in some sense, support life, and we find a negative meaning in that which endangers life. Ethics is one of those qualities concieved only of meaning because as a consideration, ethics support life. Since meaning is insepparable from life, so that one implies the other, I think it is pointless to try to talk of one without the other. Being is meaning, and when the matter of life, our meat, and our motation is removed from us all that is left that is common to all life is meaning. Certainly consciousness as we consider it is not common to all life. And still it has meaning.


Being is the substance of my life, it is made up of my presence in both time and space. I agree with you that ethics are central to my behaviour and my conduct as an individual and i perceive that ethics are a property of my being but ethics are not a given, ethics are qualities which we learn to live by.

Meaning is attributable to the actions which i take that are influenced in turn by my ideology of life. Meaning is constructed by individual actions and social agreement we discus debate and then if possible come to form particular positions and agreement which influence our actions which in turn generate meaning

Being as presence has categories of substance, attributes of the body eg perception which is filtered by the brain into information for the mind, observation and analysis which i draw upon to define my own existence through language and action.

Sadly the 20th Century has proved that inherently life has no prior given meaning we construct meaning though the actions of our being and our interaction with others to derive some meaning from the society we live in.
 
Fido
 
Reply Fri 27 Jun, 2008 01:20 pm
@Paracelsus,
Paracelsus wrote:
Being is the substance of my life, it is made up of my presence in both time and space. I agree with you that ethics are central to my behaviour and my conduct as an individual and i perceive that ethics are a property of my being but ethics are not a given, ethics are qualities which we learn to live by.

Meaning is attributable to the actions which i take that are influenced in turn by my ideology of life. Meaning is constructed by individual actions and social agreement we discus debate and then if possible come to form particular positions and agreement which influence our actions which in turn generate meaning

Being as presence has categories of substance, attributes of the body eg perception which is filtered by the brain into information for the mind, observation and analysis which i draw upon to define my own existence through language and action.

Sadly the 20th Century has proved that inherently life has no prior given meaning we construct meaning though the actions of our being and our interaction with others to derive some meaning from the society we live in.

Matter, time, and space; and you have about defined existence as we know it. And, all things have greater or lesser value, which is a fair definition of meaning. Your definition of meaning is mental pro wrestling with no clear winner, which is to say, not a good definition. A definition is like a certain constructed template, constructed from knowledge and understanding, that bits of reality can be dropped into a checked against. I have a certain slimey fellow. Is a fish or an eel? Is there a difference? Hand me the fish template and see if it fits. Then hand me the eel template.

Sir; I could make a better philosopher out of you if I could make you buy your words at a dollar a piece even if you had a million in the bank. What is the thing in itself? What is it that nothing else is? Is it possible that we will understand reality if our definitions, which are abstractions of reality are more complicated than the reality they hope to define. Think of art and of how a few lines can define a subject as what it is. The mind can fill a sketch with color. No color can give depth to many confused and misplaced line. Consider Aristotle's syllogism, and how each quality of a concept is eliminated until a concept is arrived at having all the qualities it cannot Be without.
 
No0ne
 
Reply Fri 27 Jun, 2008 02:08 pm
@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 Smile



To be is to not to be, for if ye can see, then ye can be

Or

You could just simply say, "being" is the act of precieving the perception of "being"

Hence to "be" you must precieve your self to "be"

Or

The even more easy way:rolleyes:. Look at your self, rub your hand's togeather, feel your hair, blow some air, so what's there?(what's there is your "being" and also the answer to your question)

(defined the "being" of one's self and not the self of another)
 
Fido
 
Reply Fri 27 Jun, 2008 05:28 pm
@No0ne,
No0ne wrote:
To be is to not to be, for if ye can see, then ye can be

Or

You could just simply say, "being" is the act of precieving the perception of "being"

Hence to "be" you must precieve your self to "be"

Or

The even more easy way:rolleyes:. Look at your self, rub your hand's togeather, feel your hair, blow some air, so what's there?(what's there is your "being" and also the answer to your question)

(defined the "being" of one's self and not the self of another)

So, rocks are not because they cannot percieve that they are? Wouldn't it be more truthful to say: to percieve one must be, but to be one need not percieve.
 
nameless
 
Reply Sat 28 Jun, 2008 12:27 am
@Fido,
Fido;17179 wrote:
So, rocks are not because they cannot percieve that they are?

They 'are' to us as Perspectives/Perceivers.

Quote:
Wouldn't it be more truthful to say: to percieve one must be, but to be one need not percieve.

No. To Perceive is to 'be'. We are 'Perspective' and therefore 'exist' (be) (from our perspective, anyway...). Yes, to 'perceive' is to 'be', exist. We exist as and in our Perspective/perception. We are an intrinsic component of the 'perceived' universes.
No 'Perspective' = no universe = no one to see it = no 'us'.
 
Fido
 
Reply Sat 28 Jun, 2008 05:38 am
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
They 'are' to us as Perspectives/Perceivers.


No. To Perceive is to 'be'. We are 'Perspective' and therefore 'exist' (be) (from our perspective, anyway...). Yes, to 'perceive' is to 'be', exist. We exist as and in our Perspective/perception. We are an intrinsic component of the 'perceived' universes.
No 'Perspective' = no universe = no one to see it = no 'us'.

I think Schopenhaur said: The world will die with me; and also: The world is my idea. The later may be correct, since we know the world through our ideas; but the former is not so, or at least, not obviously so, because humanity continues to exist while we no longer live, and our form of being is life. So, when we die we lose our form of being, but all about us loses meaning to us. Moral phenomena have no objective being what so ever, but only meaning. In the rush to save the ultimate moral meaning of life, most moral phenomena lose their meaning, so they lose their entire being, and meaning, and seem as nothing. If you were to ask a condemned man what justice is, it might not have any meaning to him, if it ever did; but if you ask him what life is he would have no doubt. We are all condemned.
 
nameless
 
Reply Sat 28 Jun, 2008 03:35 pm
@Fido,
Fido;17211 wrote:
I think Schopenhaur said: The world will die with me; and also: The world is my idea. The later may be correct, since we know the world through our ideas; but the former is not so, or at least, not obviously so, because humanity continues to exist while we no longer live,

Truth is never 'obvious'.
And you can possibly know this, "humanity continues to exist while we no longer live", how?
Besides, you speak of 'the world' as if there is only one objective world that everyone sees. There are 'our worlds', 'my' world, the only 'the' world, is 'our individual Perspective' as a 'world'.

Quote:
So, when we die we lose our form of being, but all about us loses meaning to us.

When we die, there is no longer an 'us' for anything to be 'about', meaning or no. We and our universes are One. When the observer is 'not', there can likewise be no observed. Observer and observed are One.

Quote:
Moral phenomena have no objective being what so ever, but only meaning.

And only to specific individuals (Perspectives) who practice 'morality'.

Quote:
In the rush to save the ultimate moral meaning of life,

Save it? There is nothing to 'save'. It is no more than a fantasy of the 'believers'.
(From the Judeo/Xtian perspective, 'morality' is a 'sin', odd that it is so blatantly practiced and condoned!)
 
Fido
 
Reply Sat 28 Jun, 2008 08:31 pm
@nameless,
Quote:

nameless wrote:
Truth is never 'obvious'.
And you can possibly know this, "humanity continues to exist while we no longer live", how?
Besides, you speak of 'the world' as if there is only one objective world that everyone sees. There are 'our worlds', 'my' world, the only 'the' world, is 'our individual Perspective' as a 'world'.


It is axiumatic: Since the world was here when I arrived, I will expect it to hang on after; but to think it will mean anything after, when it meant nothing before is a stretch. Like wise; there is one world, but as many subjective experiences of it as there are people. It is like the joke about the amoeba that walked out of a bar, and one asked: is that the sun or the moon? And the other said: I don't know; this isn't my neighborhood. We have to realize that even beyond our sight the sun shines, and that it is the same sun for everyone. And the same earth. But we do have ideas that are formed solely of sibjective impressions. If we compare love, virtue, or justice we can never be certain that we are talking about the same idea, which has no physical being.
Quote:

When we die, there is no longer an 'us' for anything to be 'about', meaning or no. We and our universes are One. When the observer is 'not', there can likewise be no observed. Observer and observed are One.


And only to specific individuals (Perspectives) who practice 'morality'.


Save it? There is nothing to 'save'. It is no more than a fantasy of the 'believers'.
(From the Judeo/Xtian perspective, 'morality' is a 'sin', odd that it is so blatantly practiced and condoned!)


Without law there would be no law breakers. Let me suggest that we are a lot like justice and virtue in our perception of self, in that life is a moral concept. We do not consider ourselves one bit of the dirt that comes out of us and that we will become, and do consider ourselves as some moral, which is to say, spiritual value. In a sense, our being, and our lives is a quality we can know, but never define, and never be certain that our lives are in any sense the same in substance (what substance?) of other lives. Insert essence. thanks.
 
No0ne
 
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 08:56 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
So, rocks are not because they cannot percieve that they are? Wouldn't it be more truthful to say: to percieve one must be, but to be one need not percieve.



A rock is not a rock due the fact it has not defined it's own existence as a rock nor has it perceived it's self as such, for man has done such for such.

So it is only how we see it is, therefore it "be" only as man see's it "be"

(*gota finish later runnen low on time:()
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/30/2024 at 12:27:28