/lit/ - Literature

Bruh, that's like, woah mahn...

Nothing.

>>5769788
someone post that Heidegger image. you know which one im talking about

>>5769806

>>5769804
Siddhartha pls

>>5769824
no not that one. the one where they explain his philosophy and they use the word being in like every other word

>>5769829
I haven't seen it, sorry

>>5769843
someone must have. its a classic. pls /lit/

>Approaching the question of being like one would approach the question of what a rock is.

It's interesting though that in formulating even that lacking question that we have some implicit, intuitive understanding of what being is (what IS (to be) being?).

It's important that Heidegger wasn't even directly approaching a definition of being in being and time. Such a definition is not there. And neither does it lack meaning either (it is not an empty concept).

The task is to remember how to ask the question of being. Heidi does this first through a phenomenological analysis of man, then later through an exploration of poetry.

In his thought we see what paths we begin to dwell on when we approach the question of being.

Heidi ditched his effort at a rigorous, systematic exploration of being. Instead he concerned himself with how one might formulate the question of being and seeing how where each approach led.

I.e. Where did the question of being qua Dasein lead? Qua poetry? Qua technology?

>>5769858
Also, read the intro to Being and Time.

DUDE BEING LMAO

Being is fucking gay

>>5769788
Being is not the same as existing.
Being is just a term used to describe the state/condition in which the subject is existing.

The girl is the girl.
A girl is a young human female which really is a collective of countless particles and atoms that together work together as a whole.
The girl is being sad.
The girl's main goal is to be a girl, because then she just is. For there exists a girl. So the girl is within existence - she is a part of existence.
The girl is being sad. Here is the existence and it's existing, but it is sad. So being is the term we use to describe the condition of existing.

The girl is being the girl, but the girl is made up of atoms so:
The particles and atom is being the girl. Nothing is being the particles for the particles just are.
So the particles are just particles. And everything we see in this world is just particles being something.

Existence cannot be anything because existence just is. It is neither this nor that strictly because this is the exact opposite of that.

But this coexists in existence alongside that, and since this and that are equally existing within existence, then existence and that to exist would be the predominant to that of being, since being is just an add-on to the existence which it is referring to.

Being is a solitary existence, it is subjective to each and every sentient being.
That said no one can describe it, not like you can anyway.

>>5770681
Anon, please.

Being is a convenient fiction whose importance is extremely exaggerated because of how crucial a role it plays in our everyday language.

The assumption that reality has constancy is bull therefore it would even be better to talk about "becoming" than it would be "being". People should realise there are no fruits in ontology.

>>5769788
Becoming

>>5770867
Why not talk about being, becoming, and nothing at the same time?

>>5771292
could you define your terms?

>>5771382
Being is the most basic property an entity can have, and it is what makes an entity an entity. A definition of the verb 'to be' would involve a conjugation of that verb, which has been problematic for millennia.
Nothing is the status of not being.
Becoming is the capacity to change and change itself.

you mean like consciousness? Its just something simulated by the material world

>>5770681

Being is consciousness, no offense to like...water and shit.

>>5769788>>5769788
>>5769788
>>5769788
>>5769788
>>5769788

What even is "is"????

>>5769788
reaction to external stimuli

>>5772062

>>5770681
>Nothing is being the particles for the particles just are.
The particles are being the particles, you stupid faggot

>>5769804
you're thinking of pure being

Being is a cohesive category.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3Nhb7HaccU&index=1&list=PLRIsuk3ZOitzDqeVKOZhe0MrzEUtRNAh5

>>5772065
What if there isn't any external stimuli? What happens to your being then?

Being is existence as non-static, it is a never ending process of becoming something else.

>>5772372
Ixnay on the 'else'

>>5772376
Ixnay on the something too, since there is no something other than Being, something as static is purely an imaginary tool created by people to simplifying a reality far too complex to be processed As Such.

>>5772372
>>5772376
>>5772379
shut up
christ

>>5772337
you are not being

can you read?

>>5772065
define "reaction"

>>5772065
What about the stimuli? Are they?

what is the being of being being

Being is having properties.

Being is the condition in which beings can be.

being is

being is being

This thread won't lead to anything btw. Being something is the premise of trying to formulate knowledge about being. So it is no separable knowledge anymore but just a part of being. We know that being must be for some reason. But this is no knowledge actually but a necessary part of being that we can't ignore. We just try to form this state of being in predications of logic but all language and logic sentences are a performance of distance from being. Yet they still are nothing else; just a special way being communicates its existence to us.

>>5769788
It's energy plus ego.

being ain't shit

>>5769788

The most sense I can make of "being" (which I take in the colloquial sense here, as synonymous with "thing," "entity") is that it's the most generalized concept that we can form; that is, it's the result of abstraction taken to an unsurpassable degree.*

The problem with defining "being" is that any attempted definition will be circular - and circular definitions are unhelpful (at their most trivial, they are tautologies). The circularity arises because "being" is the most general concept possible, and thus it contains all other intelligible concepts under it, as species are all contained under a genus; a mouse is a kind of being, a cracker is a kind of being, a thought is a kind of being, a gust of wind is a kind of being (since all of these things exist). Since the concept of "being" accompanies any and all concepts, it will also accompany any predicate concepts used to define it.

*If "general" and "abstraction" are unclear, here's what I mean.

You can form a general concept of "dog" by thinking of the common features shared by many individual dogs, while leaving aside any differences not common to all; when you do this, you're engaged in the process of abstraction, and it leaves you with a general concept that can apply equally to all the dogs you considered.

Now you can apply the same procedure to form a concept that applies to both dogs and lizards - but since there are fewer similarities between dogs and lizards than between a group of only dogs, the resulting concept will have fewer predicates, fewer features that allow you to think of it distinctly; that is, the concept that applies equally to dogs and lizards (say the concept "vertebrate") is more abstract than the concept "dogs." Both are general concepts, but "vertebrate" is more general than "dog," as you can tell when you try to visualize an individual, paradigm image of what a "vertebrate" looks like versus what an individual, paradigm image of what a "dog" looks like. However vague your model individual dog is, it's less vague than your model individual vertebrate is.

Now try to abstract from all the differences between dogs, lizards, trees, and minerals, in order to form a general concept that can apply equally to all. This is obviously more difficult, and will leave you with a very vague and highly abstract concept like "physical being" or (the not necessarily synonymous) "spatially extended being" or something like that. But still, there are some (at least conceivable, if not real) beings that could fall outside of the domain of the genus "spatially extended beings," like angels, immortal souls, gods, mathematical entities (depending on your ontology).

If we abstract even higher, we'll eventually come to a concept that applies to all things equally, and for that very reason this concept will have the same meaning as "thing." This concept is the most general we can form, and accordingly is unsurpassably vague: "being."

Being is a place, a position. You should ask "where is being?"