[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 419 KB, 728x551, 023DA32B-2B8F-4519-84FC-4782702C21A9.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14704114 No.14704114 [Reply] [Original]

What exactly is “being”?

>> No.14704125

having a body and contemplating such question

>> No.14704132

>>14704114
becoming's retarded brother.

>> No.14704135

>>14704125
But what is “being” specifically? You can’t use circular reasoning, logical fallacy post ergo propter hoc.

>> No.14704138

>>14704114
Becoming

>> No.14704148

Existence, the negation of nothing.

>> No.14704170

>>14704148
Isn’t being nothing being?

>> No.14704219

>>14704114
The only real question to this answer is that being is its own definition, its own root, its own being. It is a mystical answer, but doesn't it figure that what is possibly the greatest question we can ask is a mystical one?
Pure being isn't a thing, isn't divided, isn't qualified, and the closest concept we may have to pure being is absolute vacuity. It is simpler than anything else we can possibly grasp.

Answers like "existence" are meaningless, since what exists is just what is manifests to us, but pure being extends deep into the unmanifest, and what is manifest to us is ever in flux. What we see is "becoming", but what is real is "being".

>> No.14704262

It Is

>> No.14704298

Time

>> No.14704304

1: Everything which is the case. Everything that exists
2: Everything which is the case or could be the case. Everything that exists or in other circumstances may have existed
3. Everything which is the case, was the case, and will be the case, or which may be, have been, or will be the case. Everything that exists ever or in other circumstances may have existed
4. Everything that exists, now or in eternity, or that has the capacity to exist, but also nonexistence, which is unitary, as for it to posses differentiation would be to bring it into existence. Everything that is, or is not, or is neither, in that it cannot be said to properly exist as it is without form, but is in someway differentiated from nonexistence
5. The end of existence and nonexistence, only It Is

>> No.14704394

>>14704114
Backwards E

>> No.14704480

The axiom that gives rise to your existence

>>14704170
Being nothing sounds oxymoronic. One cannot be nothing

>> No.14704512

>>14704114
Active difference.

>> No.14704573

According to Hegel, being is thinking

>> No.14704593

According to Wittgenstein, being is being talked about

>> No.14704819

>>14704219
>Pure being isn't a thing, isn't divided, isn't qualified
You say it isn’t these things, yet these things are obviously within the term “being” if is to be a thing. You’re qualifying by disqualifying.

>> No.14704829

>>14704573
But what is thinking? I agree there may be something plausible which can be extracted from this definition, but there must be extrapolation and definition on what about thinking makes a thing a being.

>> No.14704847

>>14704114
I am that I am

>> No.14704864

Tautology
thing-in itself
grammar and the way we speak
that which may be real or reality
or a product of reality
awareness
something observed
something that is affected by physical laws

>> No.14704984

>>14704864
All useless and give no bearing as to what exactly “being” is.

>> No.14705022

>>14704984
>this faggot needs context
baka

>> No.14705030

the opposite of becoming

>> No.14705048

>>14705022
If there is no context, how does one argue anything? You must be able to have a contest foundation for being if you wish to elaborate on any metaphysical property which proceeds thereafter.

>> No.14705057

>>14705048
wait women post on lit
what

>> No.14705339

>>14704135
why don't you answer it then

>> No.14705409

>>14704219
No, 'existence' is the correct answer. Existence is everything, including that which we don't and will never perceive.

You have no basis on which to demonstrate an actual dichotomy between 'being' and 'something'.

>> No.14705433
File: 143 KB, 1080x1063, RoUwmiofCM4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14705433

What exactly is "living"?

>> No.14705457

>>14705409
So if everything and nothing is being then how is there being and why do you even use such a term when it seems suffice to reason it as a useless denotation

>> No.14705480

>>14704304
Good up to 3, but 4 & 5 are losing the plot.

>> No.14705502

>>14705457
'Nothing' is not a concrete thing, it's a concept. 'Something' (existence) is simply the default state — it always has been and always will be. I typically don't use the term 'being', I leave that sort of vagueness to the mysticists.

>> No.14705528
File: 51 KB, 581x872, heidigger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14705528

>>14705433
I gotchu bruh pic rl8ed

>> No.14705579
File: 34 KB, 450x450, nazi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14705579

>Why yes, I AM the official mascot of edgy, pseudo intellectual teenagers on /lit/, how could you tell?

>> No.14705600

>>14705048
>>14705057
There are things that dont argue though.
Does an idea have an argument?
does a rock?
things surely exist outside of just our will
surely

Its almost like you want something more from existance, but it can only ever be itself.

>> No.14705614

>>14705579
what east asian islander animation is this?

>> No.14705620

>>14704114
"Being" itself is the act of being a concrete entity.

>> No.14705658

>>14705614
Naoki Urasawa's Monster.

>> No.14705800

>>14705600
This is so pedantic and simplistic it hurts. An argument is a conflict, and all things seem to be in conflict with at least one thing at any given time.

>> No.14705958

>>14704114
> What exactly is “being”?
Depends on perception.

I think, therefore I am.
I think, therefore you are.

>> No.14706007

>>14705800
It definitly seems that way doesn't it.

and its definitly not the case that you are playing a stupid language game
are you ?

Things exist outside your stupid and facile brocas area.
Go E-Prime yourself.

>> No.14706062

>>14705480
Quite a silly statement, how are you to have probabilistic outcomes (2,3) if non-existence is not an option, and is it then not a certain state or quality? And if it is a certain state or quality what distinguishes it from other qualities as to participate in being?

>> No.14706125

>>14704114
God

>> No.14706153

>>14704135
>logicizing being
pseudohegel-nigger, why are you here?

>> No.14706484

>>14706062
Potential exists, and that isn't the same thing as non-existence. Critically examined, non-existence is synonymous with 'nothing' — it's a mere concept. There is a base reality, from which all is emergent. Neither of us can know exactly how this happens, but it probably has something to do with what we perceive as physics.

>> No.14706589

>>14704135
If ever there was an instance where circular reasoning was necessary, it would be in defining being

>> No.14706681

>>14704114
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_%28Spinoza%29#Part_I:_Of_God

>> No.14706813
File: 9 KB, 191x263, ABFA619E-8E90-43FC-8B48-DAF1E0F5892E.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14706813

>>14706007
>Things exist outside your stupid and facile brocas area.
And you know this how?

>> No.14706825

>>14706589
Why’s that?

>> No.14706850

>>14704114
Having sex

>> No.14706865

Existence is a material idea of itself.

>> No.14706867

>>14706813
Becuase there always seems to be an exception to our preconcieved notion.
And if i put a tumor in your brocas area you will still be able to see, and taste. You just wont be able to process language.
Becuase there have been people that came vefore me that poked around in others peoples brains amd while they find novel differences they used statistics and averages to tell us that theres an area in your brain that process language.

>> No.14707120

>>14704114
You imply in that question that one can define something completely. This might be false.

>> No.14707555

>>14706484
-Meaningless, you provide no proof for this base reality, and to claim that it is rooted in physics is legit God-of-the-gaps tier reasoning - 'idk what it is so probably physics'.
-And non-existence is not synonymous with nothing - a unicorn possesses the quality of non-existence, but is not nothing. Nothing is the absence of differentiation combined with the quality of non-existence
-Nit picky, but (3) includes that which 'may have existed' - probability is not potential. And what would you say about a past which did not occur, does this not possess the quality of non-existence?

>> No.14707632

>>14706867
>Becuase there always seems to be an exception to our preconcieved notion
>seems to be
Seems you’ve made a statement you don’t even whole heartedly agree with. Just because to you it seems doesn’t mean your opinion is factual.

>> No.14707638

>>14707120
>this might be false
According to your opinion that is

>> No.14707676

>>14705958
Miss me with that Ergoproxy shit, Hegel-sama!

>> No.14707687

>>14707638
Its seems that way. Consider the possibility that you cannot really fully define something, but only restrict it, for lack of a better word.

>> No.14707726

>>14707687
>Consider the possibility that you cannot really fully define something
That what you think, and it’s wrong.

I mean, I’ve already got the true definition of being. I’m just waiting to see if any anon here is smart enough to say it first.

>> No.14707796

>>14707726
Since you claim to know it, share it with us.

>> No.14707814

>>14707632

perhaps you are the exceptionto my preconcieved notions eh?

Your language games are so fucking gay. Go back to your masters thesis so you can fuck yourself with it.
And go pick apart your pubic lice.

>just becuase you sounded unsure means you might be wrong.
Jeez, like can youactually add something more to this conversation?
You think you win by stating the obvious?

>> No.14707836

The opposite of non-being.

>> No.14707848
File: 24 KB, 661x492, 2640B15D-3A4D-40D8-BDAE-079A0C58E2A3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14707848

>>14707796
Being is in between past and future; yet it is not the present, but a lack thereof. Being is to dispossess an awareness of time.

>> No.14707877

>>14707848
Once upon a time there was a Chinese farmer whose horse ran away. That evening, all of his neighbors came around to commiserate. They said, “We are so sorry to hear your horse has run away. This is most unfortunate.” The farmer said, “Maybe.”

The next day the horse came back bringing seven wild horses with it, and in the evening everybody came back and said, “Oh, isn’t that lucky. What a great turn of events. You now have eight horses!” The farmer again said, “Maybe.”

The following day his son tried to break one of the horses, and while riding it, he was thrown and broke his leg. The neighbors then said, “Oh dear, that’s too bad,” and the farmer responded, “Maybe.”

The next day the conscription officers came around to conscript people into the army, and they rejected his son because he had a broken leg. Again all the neighbors came around and said, “Isn’t that great!” Again, he said, “Maybe.”

>> No.14707939

>>14704114
Well, that depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

>> No.14708011

>>14707939
Is will be the opposite of not. Not denotes something of which it lacks. To lack something will be to disposess. I’m better at this than you. Try again fag

>> No.14708054

>>14708011
Now it depends on the meaning of "something" :)

>> No.14708077

>>14707848
I will remember that, thank you anon.

>> No.14708081

>>14705528
this is probably the simplest way to explain that book, thank you

>> No.14708092

Being is based & redpilled. Becoming is bluepilled.

>> No.14708132

>>14708054
Nah, now you’re just being a pedantic fuck.

>> No.14708141

>>14708132
How exactly are you defining "pedantic"??

>> No.14708188

>>14707555
-Base reality is logically indicated. There needs to be some fundamental condition that is existence.
-I said 'it probably has something to do with what we perceive to be physics', which isn't so much a claim as a heavily qualified guess.
-Yeah I don't particularly agree with the 'may have existed' part, but some physicists think the Everett interpretation is correct, in which case all 'may haves' are actually 'haves'. I was leaving that possibility open.
-You're kind of a petulant shit, but whatever.

>> No.14708215

>>14704114
Consciousness and occupying a space

>> No.14708227

>>14704114
As far as I am aware, it's a unified whole, whose two parts consist of the interrelation between subject and object - something like the two yin and yang of the dao.

>> No.14708318
File: 40 KB, 400x300, 1073C6F2-B8F1-4064-958B-2F629DD18474.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14708318

>>14708141
You see, you don’t want any elaboration for any reason other than to just cherry pick and straw man an argument which serves no basis other than to argue a moot point away from the actual topic at hand. Thereby, you are a gigantic pedantic fuckwad.

>> No.14708491

>>14708318
Whoa slow down there buddy, that's a lot more terms you're going to have to define now. Let's start with "cherry" this time.

>> No.14708632
File: 52 KB, 349x642, C62E9122-B033-41E8-9FF5-D872F45B0C1A.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14708632

>>14708491

>> No.14709119

>>14704114
That on the basis of which beings are understood

>> No.14709122

>>14706825
>saying everything is everything is a logical fallacy

>> No.14709128

>>14709122
That doesn’t explain anything and is completely useless.
>yes bro, it’s just everything
>what do you mean? everything’s everything, simple as bro just chill

>> No.14709131

>>14705614
It's garbage, don't bother. You may think you will like it at first but the guy must of had a heart attack while creating the manga because it practically shoots itself about fifty times, very slowly.

>> No.14709159

>>14709128
Well firstly saying that being is everything is at least supplying some level of understanding in the future-intuit of the magnitude to ever come if one can/may grasp being.

Whereas the word being itself is left open to the array of contradicting opinions and truths. However at the very least by stating it to existence we logically assert the greatest of things as "the greatest" and unwind some strand of potential in the life-moment of the person/creature and existentially compare it with the greatest of things, i.e. the holy grail and mans becoming over-life. For what can get closer to "being" than a reversal of the accepted, for this nothing greater accepted than the laws of nature, Christs Death/Resurrection, the tragedy.

It may be wrong to draw a heart of being in some ontological sense but it really isn't for our human experience, and acts implicitly for all life.

>> No.14709277

>>14704114
It's a word. What the word reference...?
Language are mind control device in order to enslave yourself. English is a hell of a language in that sense. Try replying this question using sanskrit, which is quite better for nature description.

>> No.14709342

>>14704114
What a useless, pretentious question. Sounds deep but it's just weed-fueled whimsy. "Dude what does 'be' mean lmao"

>> No.14709386

loving you, among other things

>> No.14709392

>>14706825
agrippa's trilemma

>> No.14710288

>>14704114
It’s simply What-Is

>> No.14710539

>>14709392
Agrippa trillema is wrong. See God

>> No.14710622

>>14707555
A 'unicorn' does not possess a quality of 'non-existence'. It exists, but only as a concept as opposed to an ontologically concrete entity. So you see, if we differentiate between 'abstract' and 'concrete' existence, the notion of a true quality of non-existence becomes dubious (and synonymous with 'nothing').

>> No.14710743

The outer energy of the power of all things.

>> No.14711716
File: 7 KB, 250x202, cigpepe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14711716

>>14709342
>Heidegger is just "weed fuelled whimsy"