Freemanan:
Aristotle in his famous saying puts it that 'BEING QUA BEING' meaning Being is being or Being for being. Also the Great existentialist, Martin Heidegger said Being is a thing into death, meaning existence of a being is also a movement towards it's death therefore Being is nothing.

Going from the authorities above, Being is a metaphysical entity that moves in a vicious circle of empty and void purpose. Being is what most see as the essence of existence but this is wrong. I see being in the same light Heidegger sees it. As something that is nothing, that is continually moving towards emptiness.

Since being doesn't have essence on it's own with other things defining him, then Being is JUST nothing. For example, if a child is born today, that child is still a being but what begins to define his beingness is essence and what are these essence? The name he will be given,the language and culture he will learn to give him an identity, the educational line he will toll to make him know things because he came to the world not knowing. So being is actually nothing until these things starts defining him which is the essence. And as the Existentialists will put it "existence precede essence"
This means that for a being to be important, he must exist first before having essence, that he cannot have essence without existing. So the main attribute of a Being is that it must exist. A wood is a being according to my postulation. Humans are beings, cars are beings. All of these are beings because they exist in reality and they all have no purpose without essence, something to give it meaning.

The difference between Humans and Trees or cars under the concept of Beingness, is what Existentialists categorize as Being and being (big Being and small being). This is a discourse for Other day

Cc fynestboi

Erm so sir, your definition of being is that which is nothing?

Fynestboi:




Erm so sir, your definition of being is that which is nothing?

That is the statutory definition sir. I merely affirmed and took my position under it.

Freemanan:

That is the statutory definition sir. I merely affirmed and took my position under it.

Hmmmmmmm

In the words of the pre-socratics Philosopher; Parmenides : "Being is, not-being is not"... In amplified terms, being is that which exists..

Freemanan:
Aristotle in his famous saying puts it that 'BEING QUA BEING' meaning Being is being or Being for being. Also the Great existentialist, Martin Heidegger said Being is a thing into death, meaning existence of a being is also a movement towards it's death therefore Being is nothing.

Going from the authorities above, Being is a metaphysical entity that moves in a vicious circle of empty and void purpose. Being is what most see as the essence of existence but this is wrong. I see being in the same light Heidegger sees it. As something that is nothing, that is continually moving towards emptiness.

Since being doesn't have essence on it's own with other things defining him, then Being is JUST nothing. For example, if a child is born today, that child is still a being but what begins to define his beingness is essence and what are these essence? The name he will be given,the language and culture he will learn to give him an identity, the educational line he will toll to make him know things because he came to the world not knowing. So being is actually nothing until these things starts defining him which is the essence. And as the Existentialists will put it "existence precede essence"
This means that for a being to be important, he must exist first before having essence, that he cannot have essence without existing. So the main attribute of a Being is that it must exist. A wood is a being according to my postulation. Humans are beings, cars are beings. All of these are beings because they exist in reality and they all have no purpose without essence, something to give it meaning.

The difference between Humans and Trees or cars under the concept of Beingness, is what Existentialists categorize as Being and being (big Being and small being). This is a discourse for Other day

Cc fynestboi

Sir, I must admit that you've got a very brilliant mind....while reading through your contribution to the topic in light of reason, a question popped up in my head.."can we predicate essences to nothing?" I.e if being is nothing because it is continually heading towards emptiness, then how come we are able to predicate essences and in Aristotle's term, forms to it.

Talking about being heading towards emptiness, are you referring to living beings or beings as in everything that exists,both living which are finite and limited by mortality and non-living entities like rocks and water that only undergo change of form but remain existents?

Toyolad:

Talking about being heading towards emptiness, are you referring to living beings or beings as in everything that exists,both living which are finite and limited by mortality and non-living entities like rocks and water that only undergo change of form but remain existents?

I refer to all that exist as being sir. Both living and non living. Those rocks and water exist as small being according to Heidegger while humans exist as big Being (Dasein). Those rocks and water are beings because they exist but without humans giving them essence, they exist for nothing hence their emptiness. For example, a rock exist because it serves a purpose (essence) which is for architectural or geological dealings. Water is a being because it exist and it has essence which WE all know.
This is WHERE Albert Camus' idea of Absurdity will then fall in, that it is absurd for some things to exist without having to decide in which form they want to exist or if they even want to exist at all. But this is an interesting topic for another day.

Freemanan:

I refer to all that exist as being sir. Both living and non living. Those rocks and water exist as small being according to Heidegger while humans exist as big Being (Dasein). Those rocks and water are beings because they exist but without humans giving them essence, they exist for nothing hence their emptiness. For example, a rock exist because it serves a purpose (essence) which is for architectural or geological dealings. Water is a being because it exist and it has essence which WE all know.
This is WHERE Albert Camus' idea of Absurdity will then fall in, that it is absurd for some things to exist without having to decide in which form they want exist or if they even want to exist at all. But this is an interesting topic for another day.

Just like Plato would say, beings inherently have forms, these forms were not given to beings by man but were discovered by man. In the same vein, essences are not man's creation but just man's objects of discovery...If this is the case, then beings are not nothing hence, are not emptiness...we are yet to discover all the essences embedded in water and other beings in our cosmos simply because we've not carried out our researches deeply enough.

Again, your assertion makes me wanna pose this question to you.....does that mean that whatever existent that's yet to be discovered by man let alone 'given essence' does not exist until man discovers its existence?....another philosophical issue for another day..realism and anti-realism.

I'm drawing my assertion from Parmenides' dictum that "nothing can be gotten from nothing" that no essence can be predicated on nothing and to nothing, nothing can be ascribed.

Viewing this topic: sherryshitt ( f )


welcome on board ma'am.....#grabs a seat for her #..oya come siddon and let your philosophical ink start oozing out reason

Toyolad:
Just like Plato would say, beings inherently have forms, these forms were not given to beings by man but were discovered by man. In the same vein, essences are not man's creation but just man's objects of discovery...If this is the case, then beings are not nothing hence, are not emptiness...we are yet to discover all the essences embedded in water and other beings in our cosmos simply because we've not carried out our researches deeply enough.

Again, your assertion makes me wanna pose this question to you.....does that mean that whatever existent that's yet to be discovered by man let alone 'given essence' does not exist until man discovers its existence?....another philosophical issue for another day..realism and anti-realism.

I'm drawing my assertion from Parmenides' dictum that "nothing can be gotten from nothing" that no essence can be predicated on nothing and to nothing, nothing can be ascribed.

Let me address the bold one....
No, That's not what I am saying. PLEASE put in mind that Beingness is more of an abstract entity, well the whole of metaphysics is. Being here is not what cannot be something, it is not being until it is known and given essence to. Let me ask you, can what is unknown to man exist to man? If you tell the whole of mankind that there is a ship that flies but it has not been seen or heard of, you expect man to believe that that ship really exist. I opined that existence precede essence, so a thing must exist and be known to exist by any consciousness before it qualifies as a being. That is what I am saying sir.

And as for Parmenedes, he believed in few things and the plurality of existence is not one of those things. He advocated for Monism and such thinker is not really an authority in the matters of Beingness.

damosky12:
In the words of the pre-socratics Philosopher; Parmenides : "Being is, not-being is not"... In amplified terms, being is that which exists..

by 'exist', do u mean concrete existence as in matter e.g rocks and other material substances or ideational existence as in ideas e.g the form of humanity and Ideas or both?

Toyolad:
Viewing this topic: sherryshitt ( f )


welcome on board ma'am.....#grabs a seat for her #..oya come siddon and let your philosophical ink start oozing out reason

Hahahahaha, the topic just interest me nii, as I see u guys debating and making sense. I kw nothing of philosophy

Freemanan:


Let me address the bold one....
No, That's not what I am saying. PLEASE put in mind that Beingness is more of an abstract entity, well the whole of metaphysics is. Being here is not what cannot be something, it is not being until it is known and given essence to. Let me ask you, can what is unknown to man exist to man? If you tell the whole of mankind that there is a ship that flies but it has not been seen or heard of, you expect man to believe that that ship really exist. I opined that existence precede essence, so a thing must exist and be known to exist by any consciousness before it qualifies as a being. That is what I am saying sir.

And as for Parmenedes, he believed in few things and the plurality of existence is not one of those things. He advocated for Monism and such thinker is not really an authority in the matters of Beingness.

".......can what is unknown to man exist to man?"

Man is not the measure of all things, contrary to Protagoras'assertion.... it may not exist to man but that doesnt make whatever exists outside man's mind less existent... that s why scientists discover new species of plants and animals almost everyday.

The fact that Parmenides believed in few things doesn't mean that his philosophical ideas are invalid and so cannot be quoted on issues of thiskind...that would be fallacious.

sherryshitt:


Hahahahaha, the topic just interest me nii, as I see u guys debating and making sense. I kw nothing of philosophy

#busted#...okay oh...#slowly drags his seat back#

Toyolad:

Man is not the measure of all things, contrary to Protagoras'assertion....

Man is the measure of all things from experience and the history of human society. Nothing exist without it's knowledge being known to man. I agree that things that are outside the grasp of the human mind exist and these scientists discover daily but before their discovery, they are not in existence "to the human world".
I believe our clash of opinion dwells in the fact that WE differ on ontology and it's definition. You must understand that the issue of Beingness can only be verified and measured in respect to human consciousness. Hence, anything that fails to exhibit itself to the human mind lacks beingness.

I believe you are getting a clear picture of my sketches.

damosky12:
In the words of the pre-socratics Philosopher; Parmenides : "Being is, not-being is not"... In amplified terms, being is that which exists..

Exactly my point. A being must exist in order to be a being then what gives it essence is it's recognition by some consciousness that such being exist. A being without recognition it consciousness is not a being.

Am sure mr bimbo is here, so ya face. A philosopher( oau team)

Freemanan:

Exactly my point. A being must exist in order to be a being then what gives it essence is it's recognition by some consciousness that such being exist. A being without recognition it consciousness is not a being.

Okay now I get your point but then, must this recognition by some consciousness mean that it must be by humans?... it may surprise you to know that animals also give essences to beings.for instance, they recognize some certain beings to be edible and good for their consumption.. this goes a long way to show that man is not solely the being that predicate essences to other existents before they could be regarded as beings and so, beings can exist independent of human mind or consciousness.

The fact that we've not been able to conceive of an existent doesn't mean it does not exist, it only mean that we are blind to the fact that it exists......because of our limitations as humans..e.g our ignorance of the existence of other planets in our solar system prior to their discovery.

Freemanan:
WELL, I AM FREEMAN DAVID.
PHILOSPHY GRADUATE....
DELTA STATE UNIVERSITY. B.A
UNIVERSITY OF WEST LONDON. M.A


NOW I HAVE A BURNING ISSUE AT HAND...


IS JOHN LOCKE STATE OF NATURE NOT BETTER THAN THE FORMATION OF A COMMONWEALTH/ NEW SOCIETY?

Are you planning to be a Prof?

Yieldings:
Are you planning to be a Prof?

I am not. I will Welcome an honorary one tho

Toyolad:
Okay now I get your point but then, must this recognition by some consciousness mean that it must be by humans?... it may surprise you to know that animals also give essences to beings.for instance, they recognize some certain beings to be edible and good for their consumption.. this goes a long way to show that man is not solely the being that predicate essences to other existents before they could be regarded as beings and so, beings can exist independent of human mind or consciousness.

The fact that we've not been able to conceive of an existent doesn't mean it does not exist, it only mean that we are blind to the fact that it exists......because of our limitations as humans..e.g our ignorance of the existence of other planets in our solar system prior to their discovery.

The fact that you know there are some things yet to be discovered my the human intellect shows that those things exist. Because it exist nit in corporeal but in your mind and consciousness. Remember, Being qua Being.

Hmmmmm,philosophers ........Which one is being qua being........Anyways,I did philosophy as a one semester course while in school as a student of Architecture...... Its indeed changes my ways of thinking.........

please I have one question for all critical thinkers in this room......while I was in school,our philosophy lecturer drew this question at us....-"those an android rationalize? if yes,defend your assertion and if no,do like wise...... so it was a huge debt trying to defend ones postulation in school then...........So please help me and satisfy my curious mind...........Because your debt of being ness brought is to my little mind.......thanks

Freemanan:

The fact that you know there are some things yet to be discovered my the human intellect shows that those things exist. Because it exist nit in corporeal but in your mind and consciousness. Remember, Being qua Being.

Gbam!...now I get....I agree with your first statement.

arcnomec:
please I have one question for all critical thinkers in this room......while I was in school,our philosophy lecturer drew this question at us....-"those an android rationalize? if yes,defend your assertion and if no,do like wise...... so it was a huge debt trying to defend ones postulation in school then...........So please help me and satisfy my curious mind...........Because your debt of being ness brought is to my little mind.......thanks

This one don pass me oh....I don't get your qstn bro....u mean android as in android device?....I'm sorry if my qstn sounds stupid o

Freemanan:

I am not. I will Welcome an honorary one tho

What are you planning to do with your M.A in Phil, then?

Android being..........

Does an android rationalize?..............Android being......

Yieldings:
What are you planning to do with your M.A in Phil, then?

Masters was gotten in Military and strategic studies...

Toyolad:
by 'exist', do u mean concrete existence as in matter e.g rocks and other material substances or ideational existence as in ideas e.g the form of humanity and Ideas or both?

Gaunilon a monk well grounded in Philosophy once criticised Ansalem's ontological argument that "God is that being in the mind than which no other being is greater than". Ansalem birthed an illustration of "the most perfect ireland"; that such an Ireland only exists in the mind because 'perfection' is not an attribute of contingence. This is applicable in the concept of Being. Being is not that which exists in the mind but that which exists in reality. Reality is a character of being here.

arcnomec:
please I have one question for all critical thinkers in this room......while I was in school,our philosophy lecturer drew this question at us....-"those an android rationalize? if yes,defend your assertion and if no,do like wise...... so it was a huge debt trying to defend ones postulation in school then...........So please help me and satisfy my curious mind...........Because your debt of being ness brought is to my little mind.......thanks

Philosophy of mind comes to play here. Your Android phone is a product of artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence is mechanical in nature. In other words, they are wired to function the way they do.. They do not function beyond the scope of their nature... You can not ask an android phone to list every thing it is made from and it does. It doesn't process your information. It lacks rationality in the sense that it doesn't function beyond the scope of its structure.

damosky12:


Gaunilon a monk well grounded in Philosophy once criticised Ansalem's ontological argument that "God is that being in the mind than which no other being is greater than". Ansalem birthed an illustration of "the most perfect ireland"; that such an Ireland only exists in the mind because 'perfection' is not an attribute of contingence. This is applicable in the concept of Being. Being is not that which exists in the mind but that which exists in reality. Reality is a character of being here.

wa gbayi boss mi...nice analysis.

Am enjoying this....