all or nothing at all, part 2

One way to not answer the question why is there anything at all rather than
nothing? is to simply not ask it and instead re-issue the problem in another
way, e.g., by claiming that beings have to be, that something must or has to
be (because nothing can not be and anyway because something always has
been). Whence this claim, this imperative (something has to be)? Whence this
knowledge of all time (something always has been)? A question has been
thereby diverted into a god-like claims of the imperativeness and eternal
nature of beings (alwaysness). But now the question becomes, if anything,
more urgent, more necessary, given the theological diversion. So, why are
there beings rather than nothing at all? Be-ing shows its self in certain
'oppositions' (to 'becoming', to 'thinking', to 'appearance', etc) but
nowhere, noway, more violently than to sheer nothing, non-be-ing. In saying
"be-ing" we also necessarily say "non-be-ing", nothing belongs with be-ing,
it's in the hyp-hen of be-ing... Why oh why is anything?

regards

michaelP


--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

Partial thread listing: