> Tudor, yes, but "being is" is not in the same 'sense' that "beings are";
Well, then, Being, being of Being, being of being of Being, being of being
of being of Being, ..., would be all different stuff (kind of Aristotle's
third man argument). The solution to this is to say: Being is its own being.
"Being is" means that the fact of being is. "Beings are" means that it is a
fact that they are. These two facts, they both are. They are facts. Thus
they are in the same way, i.e. in a factual way. Such facts of being we call
them: Being.
We can see that a pen is. The fact that the pen is, it is: Being. Heidegger
said: Being is different from pens, but he never said: they are mutually
exclusive, i.e. like oil and water in a glass.
Please do not make a confusion between the singular of "beings" and the fact
a being(ness) is. I find the terminology "Being" (different from)
"beingness" more helpful than eternally making a confusion between an
instance of "beings", ways of being of such an instance and the fact such an
instance is.
You know, without the fact of being being in the pen, my hand would pass
through it as through vapor (though vapor has another way of being than
pens, we guess both pens and vapors are, i.e. they are being).
Here, when I wrote "Being" I meant Heidegger's substantive, by "being" I
mentioned the continuous present of the verb "to be", "is" is the present of
the "to be", and "beings" is the same as "beingness", i.e. all stuff other
than Being.
Tudor Georgescu
http://intellect-club.nl.eu.org
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
Well, then, Being, being of Being, being of being of Being, being of being
of being of Being, ..., would be all different stuff (kind of Aristotle's
third man argument). The solution to this is to say: Being is its own being.
"Being is" means that the fact of being is. "Beings are" means that it is a
fact that they are. These two facts, they both are. They are facts. Thus
they are in the same way, i.e. in a factual way. Such facts of being we call
them: Being.
We can see that a pen is. The fact that the pen is, it is: Being. Heidegger
said: Being is different from pens, but he never said: they are mutually
exclusive, i.e. like oil and water in a glass.
Please do not make a confusion between the singular of "beings" and the fact
a being(ness) is. I find the terminology "Being" (different from)
"beingness" more helpful than eternally making a confusion between an
instance of "beings", ways of being of such an instance and the fact such an
instance is.
You know, without the fact of being being in the pen, my hand would pass
through it as through vapor (though vapor has another way of being than
pens, we guess both pens and vapors are, i.e. they are being).
Here, when I wrote "Being" I meant Heidegger's substantive, by "being" I
mentioned the continuous present of the verb "to be", "is" is the present of
the "to be", and "beings" is the same as "beingness", i.e. all stuff other
than Being.
Tudor Georgescu
http://intellect-club.nl.eu.org
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---