A thread to talk about what it means for something to be. What exists and what don't? Can mind independent things exist (be)? Are physical laws real or just abstractions? Do sub-atomic particle have being? What is the mode of being behind each metaphysical perspective (materialism, idealism)? Each culture has it's own conception of what is to be, but what grounds those conceptions? Being precedes truth? Can something even ground or precede being? Wouldn't the ground of being have to beingless? Should we overcome metaphysics? Science test the validity of propositions by relating them to objects, for example, biology has that which has life as an objects, but since philosophy is no science, what is being related so that Hume is wrong and Kant is right, or vice-versa? What is philosophy's objects? It's not an object, because it's not an entity, because philosophy relates to being. Than what is being?
What does it mean to be?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
The validity of a metaphysical perspective is based on it's epistemological prepositions, which are reciprocal, and in turn, based on a groundless mode of being. Therefore, you can only deconstruct a metaphysical perspective from the inside, putting each preposition against each other and moving to another metaphysical perspective. You can't actually destroy metaphysics.
WITH WHAT DOES THE PHILOSOPHER TEST THE VALIDITY OF AN ENUNCIATION, BEING, BUT WHAT IS THIS?
Does being even exist? You can't reduce it to just to an abstract conception, how could being not be? Does being is?
They don't think it be like it is. But it do.
Ah, so it be that way?
Think be is?
Being = Do?
You be dumdum.
Makes sense, man. Just think about it. Unless, you're conceding that it's 2deep4u. NO! I won't accept that.
Being is the eat, shit, sleep cycle.
I don't think my chair has a sleep cycle.
So you must be wrong or my chair doesn't exist. If you say that being is sleep cycle, shit, eat
But seriously, I just proved it existed, so what is being? I am perplexed.
>I don't think this eat-shit-sleep cycle's chair has a sleep cycle
You've transferred its meaning. Your chair, expand this to include all of it. With "it" being what is ineffable or personal knowledge.
I think the easier solution is to say that my chair is not. Only what eat-shit-sleep cycle is.
Being must be ineffable, not an entity. If it's not an ineffable, then it has properties and would cease to be general. Or am I wrong?
Your chair is a useful counterpoint that being exists outside of you. But without you, I'd no nothing of your chair. It is you, the eat-shit-sleep cycle, that is the solution to the issue of what is being. Would you agree boredom or procrastination?
The Great Being is who offered you the conception of a being as eat-shit-sleep cycle. Being is not just the essence of all that is, it is in the essence of thoughts. Being and thoughts are one, not one as equality, but as yin-yang.
Me
Everyone else is an NPC
Being offered you the conception of being as you. Remember that being manifests the comprehensions, it is the matrix of all that is
So even "me as being" is not absolute, only being is.
Everyone is an NPC because being permitted and offered this conception of being to you.
The Great Being was the one who put meaning into the word, the eat-shit-sleep cycle is the most basic rhythm to remaining as entities within such a domain of meaning transfer.
I think that even societies with being as not eat-shit-sleep cycle had an authentic relationship with the Great Being, the Great Being also offered to them a conception of being. Humans maybe are too small and humble to know the Great Being, an insect, only being is fully comprehensible. Praise be, the Great Being.
reminder it's actually B̶e̶i̶n̶g̶
en.wikipedia.org
Praise be to the releaser of dopamine, blessed are your (You)s
It's actually Beans*
What does it matter. Sandwiches feel good and I enjoy sucking my toe. There is a sun most of the time and mole people are kind of nice.
Fuck off Pablo
You have come into being. My point is made.
Being is the kernel of all that is, and it's conceptions keep changing through time, very important question.
>it's epistemological prepositions
Which are...?
The prepositions depends on the mode of being of that epistemology and metaphysics. There is not an absolute theory of knowledge on which all metaphysics lie upon, Kant will have a certain view on what is knowable and build his metaphysical system on it, but all of this rely in the end on a certain conception of being. In Berkeley's case, ESSE EST PERCIBI, kantians will take being as the condition of possibility of the intuitive A PRIORI. In Western Tradition we have being prioritizing the conjugation of being as "is", taking what is nearer and present as absolute, but even this mode of being is groundless.
Wow, so (early-mid) Heidegger was right all along! I shoulda known *head slap*. What's it like to think (some of) someone else's thoughts so thoroughly without actually BEING them?
>Wow, so (early-mid) Heidegger was right all along! I shoulda known *head slap*. What's it like to think (some of) someone else's thoughts so thoroughly without actually BEING them?
It's nice. Tell me, how different is early-mid Heidegger from later Heidegger, you seem to be knowledgeable.
WHO THE FUCK WAS DASEIN
THE FRIENDS WE MADE ALONG THE WAY
Dasein is that entity which in its Being has this very Being as an issue