HELP ME PLEASE

[brainlet No.21020696]

What is lacking here is a distinction between factual being and ideal being. The terminology which permits us to speak of more or less of being, and consequently of degrees of reality or being, is in itself lacking in clearness, and becomes still more confusing when the above distinction is neglected -- in other words, when Spinoza does indeed speak profoundly but fails first to consider the difficulty. In the case of factual being it is meaningless to speak of more or less of being. A fly, when it is, has as much being as the God; with respect to factual being the stupid remark I here set down has as much being as Spinoza’s profundity, for factual being is subject to the dialectic of Hamlet: to be or not to be. Factual being is wholly indifferent to any and all variations in essence, and everything that exists participates without petty jealousy in being and participates in the same degree. Ideally, to be sure, the case is quite different. But the moment I speak of being in the ideal sense I no longer speak of being, but of essence. Highest ideality has this necessity and therefore it is. But this its being is identical with its essence; such being does not involve it dialectically in the determinations of factual being, since it is; nor can it be said to have more or less of being in relation to other things. In the old days this used to be expressed, if somewhat imperfectly, by saying that if God is possible, he is eo ipso necessary (Leibniz). Spinoza’s principle is thus quite correct and his tautology in order; but it is also certain that he altogether evades the difficulty. For the difficulty is to lay hold of God’s factual being and to introduce God’s ideal essence dialectically into the sphere of factual being.

Bros, i skiped the greeks and now i pay the consequences.
What does being, essence, and " introduce God’s ideal essence dialectically" mean in this context? i must confess i dont even know what dialect is

[Anonymous No.21020715]

What is this from?

[Anonymous No.21021185]

>>21020715
From a book

[Anonymous No.21021633]

>>21020696
Is this Heidegger?

[Anonymous No.21021903]

>>21021633
Kierkegaard philosophical fragments cap 3 note 2.

[Anonymous No.21021935]

>>21020696
Ideal being is all there is, there is no actual being, just the "phenomena" of being

[Anonymous No.21021937]

>>21020696
Being is pretty much what it sounds like, the being of a thing. Essence is the “what it is” of a thing, i.e., being is the fact that it is and essence is what exactly it is. It sounds like he is saying that Spinoza merely says that God has being and exists necessarily, but doesn’t do the hard part of finding out what God’s essence is, which is done “dialectically” because it is a process of reasoning. You would think Spinoza does is say God’s essence is everything, but I think what Kierkegaard thinks is that Spinoza merely says God exists and then that “everything” is just a mode of God, which doesn’t say what God is but only that every thing is in some way him.