Define "being"

@No0ne,

No0ne wrote:

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:()

We have not even managed to define our own existence, and I hope that does not mean we do not exist. Wouldn't you prefer to say that wrestling with the meaning of our lives shows we are conscious, and even that we have will; but that we cannot deny to existence its being only because it is not conscious and only conforms to certain laws of nature. The difference is not between being and not being, but between being and meaning. Meaning is a certain quality essential to our own form of being: LIfe. Since every event, and bit of matter has the potential of affecting each life, each life must view all matter in relative degrees of meaning; but that, when we die, nothing will have meaning whether it exists still, or not.

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

We have not even managed to define our own existence, and I hope that does not mean we do not exist. Wouldn't you prefer to say that wrestling with the meaning of our lives shows we are conscious, and even that we have will; but that we cannot deny to existence its being only because it is not conscious and only conforms to certain laws of nature. The difference is not between being and not being, but between being and meaning. Meaning is a certain quality essential to our own form of being: LIfe. Since every event, and bit of matter has the potential of affecting each life, each life must view all matter in relative degrees of meaning; but that, when we die, nothing will have meaning whether it exists still, or not.

:a-thought:
...:rolleyes: Well I have defined mine, within my mind.

Information is the building block's to the creation of what one has defined as the existence for one's self or another, yet the information come's from the existence around one's self or another.

(Short & Sweet)

If you cannot take in that information, then you cannot define your own existence, but another that can, could define your existence for you.

(Hence a rock has not defined it's self as a rock, for it lack the ability to due such, for those that do have that ability, do such for such.)

-Example
:painting: The painter's art cannot define it's self, nor could it define it's own existence, for it lack's the ability to do such, yet the painter has the ability to make and define it's existence for it.

(Observation Of The Art Work Of Nature, In Prosuite Of Understanding Of One's Self) Some thing's are only observed from the safty of one's own mind:poke-eye::whoa-dude:Hence I know it exist's if I can poke you with it, and Im sure in the stick's existence it wont scream in pain:lol:

(Puting those new Smilies to use)(ty Justin)

@No0ne,

What is "being"?

The illusion of 'motion'.

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

What is "being"?

The illusion of 'motion'.

For humans, and for all of humanity, existence is illusion; but for all else that exists, we cannot even imagine as much for them. Does a star ever have a thought or a memory? Does a planet have a dream. Our form of existence, Life, has all these things, and more; but because we do not have the permenence of the molocules we are made of, it is not real, and so, is illusion. And what we say of a single human life, that it will pass into nothing is true of all of humanity, that we will not escape to live forever among the stars, but will all some day pass from existence entirely, and when that occurs even the stars will die without our admiration.

@Fido,

Fido;17978 wrote:

For humans, and for all of humanity, existence is illusion;

A rather bald faced ass-ertion! Are you speaking for me?
I said that 'motion' is an illusion (of Perspective). Not existence.
Everything exists!
It is an '-ing' thing (being), verb, action = the 'motion' to which I referred. I was not negating the 'be/isness' of 'existence'.

Quote:

but for all else that exists,

Nothing exists that is not perceived by conscious Perspectives (us).

Quote:

And what we say of a single human life, that it will pass into nothing is true of all of humanity, that we will not escape to live forever among the stars, but will all some day pass from existence entirely...

Actually, existence 'ends' when we do. Existence exists in the 'mind' of, as the Perspective (who is actually One with, non-differentiated from this momentary existence).

I appreciate the poetic nature of your posting, but have chosen to ignore it as irrelevent to the advancement of the discussion.

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

A rather bald faced ass-ertion! Are you speaking for me?
I said that 'motion' is an illusion (of Perspective). Not existence.
Everything exists!
It is an '-ing' thing (being), verb, action = the 'motion' to which I referred. I was not negating the 'be/isness' of 'existence'.

Nothing exists that is not perceived by conscious Perspectives (us).

Actually, existence 'ends' when we do. Existence exists in the 'mind' of, as the Perspective (who is actually One with, non-differentiated from this momentary existence).

I appreciate the poetic nature of your posting, but have chosen to ignore it as irrelevent to the advancement of the discussion.

If existence is an infinite, then I doubt you can prove it has a name let alone that everything exists. Only by going to the root of the word, thing, as res, from which re-s-ality can you make the statement, and it is rather an observation than any provable fact. I think we have to accept that we will never know enough to say what we know, never grasp all we can reach, never be able to prove all that we percieve, and never be able to tell the truth. All is illusion, and the best we can do is to keep the illusion coming because that means that we yet live. Peas.

@Fido,

Fido;18009 wrote:

nameless wrote:

A rather bald faced ass-ertion! Are you speaking for me?
I said that 'motion' is an illusion (of Perspective). Not existence.
Everything exists!
It is an '-ing' thing (being), verb, action = the 'motion' to which I referred. I was not negating the 'be/isness' of 'existence'.

Nothing exists that is not perceived by conscious Perspectives (us).
Actually, existence 'ends' when we do. Existence exists in the 'mind' of, as the Perspective (who is actually One with, non-differentiated from this momentary existence).

If existence is an infinite, then I doubt you can prove it has a name let alone that everything exists.

I never said that existence is an 'infinite'. I don't say it, because I do not think it. Please don't put straw-men in my mouth. Please see my bolded (for your convenience) quote above.
I do not have to 'prove' anything. One does with the evidence what one must.
'Existence' has a name, it is 'existence'. Simple. That is 'evidence' of it's existence, in at least one context, already.
I can also offer evidence that 'everything exists' by, for one, you can offer nothing as evidence that 'anything' doesn't exist. Get it? If you can even conceive of it, it exists within the context of your conceptions.
Existence = Context/Definition = Existence.
That is the complete 'set'. There are Perspectivally based/biased 'subsets', but I find them too subjectively arbitrary to take serious note. Whatever thay might be, they still fall within the 'set'.
So again I say that the 'complete' set (completest that we know at the moment) is that everything exists, in context, as 'existence' is Context.

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

I never said that existence is an 'infinite'. I don't say it, because I do not think it. Please don't put straw-men in my mouth. Please see my bolded (for your convenience) quote above.
I do not have to 'prove' anything. One does with the evidence what one must.
'Existence' has a name, it is 'existence'. Simple. That is 'evidence' of it's existence, in at least one context, already.
I can also offer evidence that 'everything exists' by, for one, you can offer nothing as evidence that 'anything' doesn't exist. Get it? If you can even conceive of it, it exists within the context of your conceptions.
Existence = Context/Definition = Existence.
That is the complete 'set'. There are Perspectivally based/biased 'subsets', but I find them too subjectively arbitrary to take serious note. Whatever thay might be, they still fall within the 'set'.
So again I say that the 'complete' set (completest that we know at the moment) is that everything exists, in context, as 'existence' is Context.

I will not put any kind of men in your mouth. We be not cannibals here after all. No; I say existence is an infinite because I can't see the far side of it. I call existence that so we are pointed in the same general direction, but who knows if existence is one thing or many. So, say what you wish, and I will try to not trouble you more. It is, after all, either under your radar, or over your head. Peace brudda

@Fido,

Fido;18044 wrote:

I say existence is an infinite because I can't see the far side of it.

Like the city in which you live?
Like the moment in which you live?

Quote:

and I will try to not trouble you more.

Friend Fido, you don't trouble me in the least.
Peace

@nameless,

Hello everyone. Heidegger pointed out the obvious circular dilemma in this question, which is that in simply asking the question "What is being?" we are forced to use the present indicative form of what we are trying to define (is). We might a well ask, "What is the being of being?" I think Sartre, and the existentialsts in general, have the best handle on this issue since they define being as "nothingness." The idea that we must define "Being" as something positive assumes that there is something objective and external to ourselves to which we conform. It is similar to the idea of "human nature." We existentialists reject this altogether. We say that man is nothing, until he begins to create himself and define himself through action.

@Master Pangloss,

Pangloss,

"We say that man is nothing, until he begins to create himself and define himself through action." quote

:)You mean by this, that man defines himself through his own biological extension? I would have difficulty as well with the use of the term ACTION, the physical world is man's motivation to reaction, not ACTION, the circumstances of the outer world providing the material for the formation of his intent out of which he reacts.

@Master Pangloss,

Master Pangloss;19015 wrote:

Hello everyone. Heidegger pointed out the obvious circular dilemma in this question, which is that in simply asking the question "What is being?" we are forced to use the present indicative form of what we are trying to define (is). We might a well ask, "What is the being of being?" I think Sartre, and the existentialsts in general, have the best handle on this issue since they define being as "nothingness." The idea that we must define "Being" as something positive assumes that there is something objective and external to ourselves to which we conform. It is similar to the idea of "human nature." We existentialists reject this altogether. We say that man is nothing, until he begins to create himself and define himself through action.

I dont think we can say what is the being of being for that implies a particular form of essentialism and universalism in relation to being, eg that being must have particular characteristics which participants in the debate have examined, defined and agreed are the essential characteristics of the object of the inquiry, if anything philosophy proves this is not the point, that schools of thought have various interpretations of being which clash with other schools of thought.

Second I don't agree that a man is nothing till he begins to create himself and define himself through his actions. At what age is this supposed to begin? Is there a set time that this process begins.

As we are social beings we are in part moulded first by family, then the society we engage in which is an arm of the state as it sanctions and controls the behaviour of the society we live in. Then school and processes of social institutionalism we interact with. At what point in this process do we revolt and take charge of the process of self formation and if we do not then how do we become individuals? Through a process of reaction against dominant forces? Creative liberation in the arts? By asking Why?

Yes it can be said that we are defined by our thoughts and actions but to say that we are nothing prior to this is just absurd, don't get me wrong I admit to being a teenage existentialist who was influenced by Sartre,Camus but I believe that we have progressed way past the ideas of that particular school of thought.

I think that defining being is not the question, but asking how we engage in a Becoming. How we as individual agents with a particular degree of free will engage in the formation and construction of our lived identity, and that means exploring both the interiority and exteriority, though a process of Becoming which occurs though the duration of our life.

@Master Pangloss,

Master Pangloss wrote:

Hello everyone. Heidegger pointed out the obvious circular dilemma in this question, which is that in simply asking the question "What is being?" we are forced to use the present indicative form of what we are trying to define (is). We might a well ask, "What is the being of being?" I think Sartre, and the existentialsts in general, have the best handle on this issue since they define being as "nothingness." The idea that we must define "Being" as something positive assumes that there is something objective and external to ourselves to which we conform. It is similar to the idea of "human nature." We existentialists reject this altogether. We say that man is nothing, until he begins to create himself and define himself through action.

You existentialists have got things wrong if you say man is nothing only because you are lacking objectibve proof that he is something. As with all things real, theory preceed proof, and as far as life goes, the sense of it is over whelming, so the proof is unnecessary. If we call it life we call it life as a theory that we are all experiencing the same quality, and in a sense, that is what needs proof, the common quality of life on earth. But as far as proof of being goes, isn't it more necessary to disprove what is obvious rather than to prove what obvious. The world is alive and the sun is up, and if it is obvious to all, as life is obvious to all; isn't the first step to disprove the obvious. That is the only reason existentialists bother with statements like: we are nothing. They hope by disproving a negative they have proved a positive. With being, they are dealing with the obvious, and denying the obvious to prove a negative wrong is a mental cul de sak in that it leads to no where, but makes people feel they are some where.

@Fido,

Wow. I've been gone only a couple of days and already things geat complicated. I think some simple clarfication is in order, because a couple of the responses seem to lack a basic understanding of existentialism. So I'll take it one at a time.

Boagie - Your response was by far the most constructive. Thanks for that. I do mean biological extension, as that is, of course, a form of action, at least in the sense that it is directed with a concrete intent in an interpersonal world; that is, a social world in which we interact with other people. I would also include anything spoken or written. I agree with you to the extent that the physical world imposses limitations on me (gravity, hot, cold, I must eat and sleep, these sorts of things). But this goes without saying I think. Technically however, "reaction" may be a better term. But, if we are to get that definitive, then what if anything may we call "action"? Smile

So, if your critique is purely semantic, then technically I agree. Otherwise, that is something else altogether.

Paracelsus - I am not suggesting that "Being" has "particular characteristics." I was actually arguing against that type of definition. I was merely pointing out the dilemma and circular nature of the question. Moreover, I think you are treading both sides of the fence here. You said, "schools of thought have various interpretations of being which clash with other schools of thought," and later you said, "I believe that we have progressed way past the ideas of that particular school of thought." quote. It is contradictory to distinguish between "schools of thought" when refering to defintions of Being and then suggest that philosophy has somehow collectively, that is objectively moved beyond a particular school of thought. There are either schools of thought or there aren't. You can't have it both ways. As for your other comments, I think you are eliciting a type of determinism which existentialism does not entertain. Of course, we grow up in familes and in societies, but I do not agree (as you seem to be suggesting) that these outside influences add to us and manipulate us without our consent. One of the primary sermons of existentialism is that man is totally and completely free, without excuse for his actions (or reactions:)), that he is ultimately and soley responsible for what he does. This is essential for ethics. If I grow up with an abusive father, that is not an excuse for abusing my own children. It all takes place in a social context, but that social social context does not determine my actions, I do. Moreover, I am not suggesting that creation starts at any particular age. We say that man is only defined in action, not in passive absorption of his social conditions. Simply placing someone in a social context as an observer/absorber does not equal creation and definition. It is only when he does something, when he acts and interacts with and against other people that creation, that a definition can begin. You can only define something in relation to something else. Man's definition depends on other people. This is why we say that man is only defined in action. I cannot call someone a thief unless he has stolen. I cannot call someone a killer unless he has killed. And if he is a thief or a killer, he has made himself that. Society can not steal or kill for you. To say that man is something a priori to any action is to say that he is merely a part of his surroundings, no different from a lampshade or a rock. It is to dehumanize him. I am not saying that the defintition of "Being" is nothing, I am saying that there is no such thing as "Being." That is, there is no external, objective, a priori measure of what constitutes a man. Man is what he makes himself.

Fido - I think you are playing upon the notions of positivity and negativity in a dishonest way. When I say "nothing", I do not mean "nonexistence." Obviously, I am aware of myself and life in general. I am not disputing that. I also disapprove of your suggestion that existentialists are engaged in some sort of trickery by giving the illusion of positivity in merely masking the negative. I'm not that good of a magician. However, I'll give you chance to make good on your post since you seem so convinced that man is something a priori. So, what is he? Smile

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

If you are saying that for people, being is life, well, yes.

Doesn't a dead corpse have "being"? Don't we have the same "thing" sort of being whether we're alive or dead?

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Doesn't a dead corpse have "being"? Don't we have the same "thing" sort of being whether we're alive or dead?

Certainly matter exists, but humans do not exist as matter because we think of our being as spiritual, and that spiritual being we think of generally as meaning, so that with life going, one loses meaning, and while the matter that makes up the person may have some meaning to those who knew the person, it is so much dirt to anyone else. As a practical matter, giving significance, meaning to the dead is not a part of the problem human beings face. We think highly of the founding fathers, dead to a man; but they have managed from the past to bend us over a barrel and skarooo us most raw, and we love them the better for it.

No! The problem for human beings is to give life its proper value, meaning, so that we understand that future life is likely while past life is gone, and that all living people endure life as well as enjoy life, and that all people pay for their lives with their lives, and the only true medicine we have to cure our ills and to salve our pain is, in every case, each other. It is a measure of our meaness, our sterility, and our hopelessness that we can decide to do as we have done, or do what we will do without the least consideration of the effects of our actions on future generations, or on children half way around the world or right next door.

Morality, which once was centered around community, and held all others at bay is now centered around the individual and holds all of reality at bay. We are demoralized, and this is the first step into spiritual death, of not caring for the pain of others so we can be better numb to our own passing. In our morality, only the individual life counts for something. This way of thinking is not natural, and it requires its own philosophical justification. In truth, people die, but the being of humanity continues if each generation does its part to improve life, find wisdom, and do good with it.

I can't say what life is, but this much I can say: The life in me is exactly the same life in you. Life is all we have in common, and it is a common life recieved from a distant source, passed from being to being until given to each of us. Much as I value my life above all others, I cannot see any good reason why all should not feel the same. But just as I wish to give life to the future and so have this life in me be eternal, still, I marvel that we do not all feel so, and wish to hand off -not only the life, but the stuff of life, this earth, our culture and technology intact. To have one fat fire we burn up a whole forest and all that is in it only to suffer a cold cruel end and an eternal night.

It does not make sense to me. The only explanation I have is that we must already be dead in our hearts and are celebrating our own funerals because we quite naturally cannot concieve of anything without our own lives. But, Our lives are not our own. They are our common quality. Perahps the death of humanity, of the earth and of all life is inevitable, so why not let it all end with us? With life lives hope, and given the tenacity of life, the will that has overspread this world, there may yet be a chance others may find means to inhabit the far reaches of space, from where they can look at us as we now look in a mirror for a pale reflection of what we once were.

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

humans do not exist as matter because we think of our being as spiritual

So existence is dependent upon what humans think, not what humans are?

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

So existence is dependent upon what humans think, not what humans are?

I couldn't say it better myself, though I might argue our existent is dependent upon the fact that we think, and because we think we are angels, or at least spiritual second only to God, that we have raised ourselves far above mere animals of nature. We are matter in the sense that matter remains after we are no more, and in the sense that we are dependent upon matter, upon the arrangement of matter in space, and on the transformation of matter into objects of utility. We are as absolutely right to percieve that we are as different from this ordinary existence as matter, as light is different from darkness. And, if the question is of being, and not simple existence, then being, as we consider it, soul, animus; then that definition must tell both what we are alike, and in what ways we differ from mere matter. And yet, I cannot define life even if I can recognize in life the working of will. All I can do is presume a certain obvious fact, that what ever life is, is a shared quality common to all life, springing from a common source, Dependent Upon Matter; but essentially different from mere matter.

@saiboimushi,

saiboimushi wrote:

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

There is a reason for tautology being inescapable; that is the notion of 'being' can be associated with many other categorical definitions (like life, form, existence), so if one were to explain a concept of the definition of 'being' one would (invariably) have cause to use words whose definitions partially equate to parts of other words. This is the problem with categorical language; when words are not used as symbols of emotion they tend to conflate - an example might be 'being' and 'existing'; the first infers some kind of activity, and the second tells of presence, but of course it is surely clear that to become, continue or cease to be present is an action of sorts.

Quote:

I might argue our existent is dependent upon the fact that we think, and because we think we are angels, or at least spiritual second only to God, that we have raised ourselves far above mere animals of nature. We are matter in the sense that matter remains after we are no more, and in the sense that we are dependent upon matter, upon the arrangement of matter in space, and on the transformation of matter into objects of utility. We are as absolutely right to percieve that we are as different from this ordinary existence as matter, as light is different from darkness. And, if the question is of being, and not simple existence, then being, as we consider it, soul, animus; then that definition must tell both what we are alike, and in what ways we differ from mere matter. And yet, I cannot define life even if I can recognize in life the working of will. All I can do is presume a certain obvious fact, that what ever life is, is a shared quality common to all life, springing from a common source, Dependent Upon Matter; but essentially different from mere matter.

How could an individual cat/human/swordfish be different to the matter which covers the sea-bed/earth/digestive system, or to the matter that infests the atmosphere?

Surely it is obvious that simple matter (atoms) are capable of working towards an intended/predisposed target - an oxygen atom is predisposed to associate and bind itself with a hydrogen atom in conjunction with a second oxygen atom; how could we say that a cat, which is predisposed to eat and excrete definitely intends to do so, in contrast to the atom which supposedly has not mindfulness? To be honest I doubt that one could differentiate between the activity of a cat and the activity of a group of atoms - after all the seems only to be a cluster of atoms intent on a common course of action.

This might seem odd: The nature of a nucleus is apparently designed to recognize and manage it's relevant protons/etc and it's capabilities; is this identical to a cat recognizing essential/desired activities and managing it's actions? It is possible to say that the two concepts are identical, yet extremely distant analogies - the cat operates itself with the aid of billions of nuclei, all cooperating in tandem; the diffusion of particles and separation of elements would appear to be intended by the cat, yet it's existence is limited by a definite span of conscious 'life' although the fundamental elements do not decompose as the cat's cells do, they seem to flirt with co-operation without ever communicating to the 'living' the ability to remain existent whilst interacting, for huge lengths of time - billions of years spent creating a pattern of events, a history of objects and somewhat pointless coexistence (I mean the atoms' revolving in gaseous groups of atoms which would also seem to possess the same cooperative intention as objects, like rocks or organisms or animals; contending with each other at the points of chemical reaction, and consistently performing the same basic task: revolution!)

I know that the proof of such matter existing - or existing in the fashion explained - is bound by doubt, for we have few sure methods of ascertaining such scientific 'facts' without using epistemology and mechanical equipment (tools bound by the possibility of obstruction of the senses and perceptive/cognitive fallibility). Yet despite these doubts one could deduce that the structure and activity of an atom (it's 'being') is far more successful than that of an animal - an atom continues it's consistent revolution for excessively long periods of time, available to other particles as some kind of a kindred mate (the perpetuation of chemical reactions), yet existing - like animals - as finite entities, with life-spans (apparently).

If one could say that an atom is more successful at existence than an animal - in that it exists for longer time, and continues to interact - then how could one define the product of these atoms' interaction (animals/organisms/vegetation) as a more valuable/important entity? It is clearly obvious that the atoms of which the organs consist are more vital than the claws on the cat, so we can say atoms exist in some kind of hierarchy of importance - is this a defining characteristic of 'complexity' in life? I think it is... Again those atoms at the centre of a gaseous cloud interact with other atoms (the surrounding atmosphere) differently to those atoms near the edge - even if the cloud's atoms are distributed evenly among the atmosphere there is a time when the atoms in the cloud are not equal members, each occupies a place in a hierarchy based on the purpose and interaction (with atmosphere/other bodies of atoms) of the individual atom.

If we can distinguish a value of the interaction/purpose of an atom then we could infer some sort of intention which the individual possesses - it is clear that a body of atoms remains a coexistent entity until all individual atoms have reacted with the environment; so surely we can identify a purpose for the individual atoms, which then infers an intention. If an atom could have an intention, what difference is there between an atom and an animal? Both consist of numerous parts, all supposedly governed and existing as parts of a mechanism whose purpose is a product of available opportunity.

One could replace 'atom' in this post with any part of an animal, and with a few grammatical tweaks the passage would probably make sense. So I find it clear that the existence of a cat and the existence of an atom both constitute 'being'.

@Master Pangloss,

Master Pangloss;19233 wrote:

Wow. I've been gone only a couple of days and already things geat complicated. I think some simple clarfication is in order, because a couple of the responses seem to lack a basic understanding of existentialism. So I'll take it one at a time.

Boagie - Your response was by far the most constructive. Thanks for that. I do mean biological extension, as that is, of course, a form of action, at least in the sense that it is directed with a concrete intent in an interpersonal world; that is, a social world in which we interact with other people. I would also include anything spoken or written. I agree with you to the extent that the physical world imposses limitations on me (gravity, hot, cold, I must eat and sleep, these sorts of things). But this goes without saying I think. Technically however, "reaction" may be a better term. But, if we are to get that definitive, then what if anything may we call "action"? So, if your critique is purely semantic, then technically I agree. Otherwise, that is something else altogether.

Paracelsus - I am not suggesting that "Being" has "particular characteristics." I was actually arguing against that type of definition. I was merely pointing out the dilemma and circular nature of the question. Moreover, I think you are treading both sides of the fence here. You said, "schools of thought have various interpretations of being which clash with other schools of thought," and later you said, "I believe that we have progressed way past the ideas of that particular school of thought." quote. It is contradictory to distinguish between "schools of thought" when refering to defintions of Being and then suggest that philosophy has somehow collectively, that is objectively moved beyond a particular school of thought. There are either schools of thought or there aren't. You can't have it both ways. As for your other comments, I think you are eliciting a type of determinism which existentialism does not entertain. Of course, we grow up in familes and in societies, but I do not agree (as you seem to be suggesting) that these outside influences add to us and manipulate us without our consent. One of the primary sermons of existentialism is that man is totally and completely free, without excuse for his actions (or reactions:)), that he is ultimately and soley responsible for what he does. This is essential for ethics. If I grow up with an abusive father, that is not an excuse for abusing my own children. It all takes place in a social context, but that social social context does not determine my actions, I do. Moreover, I am not suggesting that creation starts at any particular age. We say that man is only defined in action, not in passive absorption of his social conditions. Simply placing someone in a social context as an observer/absorber does not equal creation and definition. It is only when he does something, when he acts and interacts with and against other people that creation, that a definition can begin. You can only define something in relation to something else. Man's definition depends on other people. This is why we say that man is only defined in action. I cannot call someone a thief unless he has stolen. I cannot call someone a killer unless he has killed. And if he is a thief or a killer, he has made himself that. Society can not steal or kill for you. To say that man is something a priori to any action is to say that he is merely a part of his surroundings, no different from a lampshade or a rock. It is to dehumanize him. I am not saying that the defintition of "Being" is nothing, I am saying that there is no such thing as "Being." That is, there is no external, objective, a priori measure of what constitutes a man. Man is what he makes himself.

Fido - I think you are playing upon the notions of positivity and negativity in a dishonest way. When I say "nothing", I do not mean "nonexistence." Obviously, I am aware of myself and life in general. I am not disputing that. I also disapprove of your suggestion that existentialists are engaged in some sort of trickery by giving the illusion of positivity in merely masking the negative. I'm not that good of a magician. However, I'll give you chance to make good on your post since you seem so convinced that man is something a priori. So, what is he?

Master Pangloss, my apologies for not replying sooner, the demands of the world have taken precedence over the demands of the mind of late. To begin with I am not an existentialist. While I have both formally and informally studied the philosophy attributed to Sartre, I personally, engaged as I am on my particular intellectual voyage of discovery, have moved beyond such paradigms of thought. I don't think less of it as a historical school of philosophy or intellectual paradigm simply it no longer fits my view of the world.

To reiterate we are socially constructed beings, in my opinion to make such a statement is not advocating determinism at all. I do not hold or subscribe to any form of determinism. When we speak and interact with others we are exposed to their specific ideology, views and opinions of the world. We then weigh the veracity of the claims articulated via those ideas and determine how they function in the social milieu. For example take ethics, are ethics a mere intellectual word game or are they principals which govern and regulate our behaviour? I choose the later and in choosing I acknowledge that the interactions I have with others inform how I behave in an ethical manner. Do I accept that all humans are equal regardless of creed colour and social status? And if I do then how do I behave in a manner which manifests those ideas. As individuals we learn within the social environments in which we live and interact, this learning occurs both in the home the school, amongst friends and broader social milieu. I would recommend to you to read, that is if you haven't, Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses(Notes towards an Investigation) by Althusser.

To quote you, It is only when he does something, when he acts and interacts with and against other people that creation, that a definition can begin.
So what do you define by action? Are you advocating a specific social act? What by the above definition are you proposing for action? The process of thought that leads to and accompanies action? Should I get up and change the TV myself or use the remote? For me (being influenced by Deleuze) we are constantly engaged in acts of becoming which define our Being and in turn our identity. Identity creation and its maintenance as a structural dynamic is one of the major elements of lived life. We are exposed all our lives to different schools of thought and people. We can if we are living an examined life, contemplate those ideas and in doing so we learn and in learning new intellectual skills, we grow. Growth not only of the Ego/Mind we Become more than what we were previously. The process of Duration (as time is defined by Bergson) anchors our Being, and conducive to any action is the requirement of language. It is though the act of language that we define our existence, not just though action. Language enables us to articulate our thoughts and state, who and what I am, and that is we are beings with finite existences and any definition that we as individuals construct we construct though the process of language, we think in terms of language not actions. I can ruminate in a solitary fashion but for my words to have weight and meaning( and ultimately affect my actions). I have to engage in a discursive process with another individual, other wise its just words on a mental carousel.

Also I am not sitting on the fence by saying 'that schools of thought differ and conflict with other schools of though' What we doing here is that we are engaged in discourse, you are seeking to articulate a existentialist perspective that I don't agree with. I do not belong to any specific school of philosophy, philosophy is a broad schematic with conflicting points of view and ideological positions, I was not seeking to privilege one school of thought over the other but merely state what to me is the obvious, no one holds the exclusive right to the truth(and isn't that is what is the major problem with the world today?). In my opinion Philosophy is a tool which can be applied to life to seek answers and define meaning( and also be a pleasant intellectually creative past time) through which I as an individual can engage in a process of becoming, this becoming is both conducted by language and then some form of social action. For example this forum.

Every epoch has privileged particular schools of though over others and in order for philosophy as a collective entity to grow it needs to constantly build and renew its intellectual identity and in doing so we move past outmoded theories and embrace new ones, this is how we develop and progress both as a society and as individuals. As for Being, as you can see by reading this post there are a variety of interpretations which people embrace in relation to what we define as Being.

I do not advocate a collective notion of Being only that there are various historical interpretations which have been superseded by intellectual advances within philosophy, as a collective intellectual entity. That is what progress is, the deconstruction of previous systems of though, and laying bare their fallacies and the advocation of new intellectual systems. This as far as I know is a constant process in the entity we know as philosophy.

Philosophy Forum

Define "being"

Quick Links

My Account

able2know