Define "being"

[Arjen]

I would like to offer another thought on the matter; a Cartesian thought.

"Being" is the existence of something which can be acted upon.

[vajrasattva]

being is the presence of consciousness and awareness in the infiniteness of existance

[nameless]

Originally Posted by saiboimushi

What is "being"?

The '-ing' indicates 'motion', a verb.
'Motion' is an illusion/mental product of Perspective; ie; a movie is really static motionless frames seen from a particular perspective, one at a time, linearly/temporally, in a particular order (again, perspective).
So, in answer to your question, I'd say that 'being' is an illusion of perspective, only existing in your thoughts/memory..
I don't think that that is a tautology.

[nemosum]

Originally Posted by nameless

The '-ing' indicates 'motion', a verb.
'Motion' is an illusion/mental product of Perspective; ie; a movie is really static motionless frames seen from a particular perspective, one at a time, linearly/temporally, in a particular order (again, perspective).
So, in answer to your question, I'd say that 'being' is an illusion of perspective, only existing in your thoughts/memory..
I don't think that that is a tautology.

nameless,

You say that "-ing" implies motion, and motion is illusory. Therefore, "being is an illusion of perspective, only existing in your thoughts/memory. . ." But then, what do you mean by "existing" in our thoughts? Would the existence of it in our thoughts be an "illusion" also? So, now our thoughts are mere "illusions," just like motion and being? But what does it mean for a thought to be an illusion?

I'm afraid that all that just doesn't do it for me. '-ing' doesn't necessarily indicate motion. Take for instance the words "standing," "unmoving," etc. "-ing" merely indicates a process, an event whose truth value is "true" for more than one consecutive time coordinate.

So, back to the original question. I think it depends on what kind of things your talking about. I haven't considered the question very much, but right now I might venture to agree with Berkeley: "being" (at least in the case of things other than myself), means having the potential to be perceived. "Being" for myself, though, is another matter. I think I would say that "being" means "to interact with a reality." I'm not sure whether "interact" would be simple perceiving or if it would involve actual choice. Or maybe perception itself involves choice.

I said "being for things other than myself" and "being for myself" because I suggest that in order to discuss this at all, we must speak only in terms of ourselves and whatever is not ourselves. For, to me, there is logically, spatially, and temporally no difference between you or Bob or Jessica and this table, computer, or pen. What it means for you to "be" with regard to my experience is different than what it means for you to "be" with regard to your own experience.

I'm certainly an amateur at philosophy, so I hope that came out intelligible.

[Arjen]

Nemosum,

Nameless was making an argument from etymology. He is making a good argument too. Even though we often do not realise the origin of our choice of words, but the meaning of the words is often much better understood by its etymology. By an examination of the etymology we see that the evolution of a language is dictated by the wrongfull use of the language in question. The meaning of words is often so twisted that one suspects hermeneutics around every corner. "Be-ing" in the sense Nameless points out really is an illusion. Perhaps "existance" is a better word for what you (and I untill now) use "being".

[nemosum]

Originally Posted by Arjen

Nemosum,

Nameless was making an argument from etymology. He is making a good argument too. Even though we often do not realise the origin of our choice of words, but the meaning of the words is often much better understood by its etymology. By an examination of the etymology we see that the evolution of a language is dictated by the wrongfull use of the language in question. The meaning of words is often so twisted that one suspects hermeneutics around every corner. "Be-ing" in the sense Nameless points out really is an illusion. Perhaps "existance" is a better word for what you (and I untill now) use "being".

Forgive my ignorance. I'm familiar with etymology, but not with hermeneutics. However, I'm still not sure that '-ing' really does imply motion. I don't think it comes from Latin, and I'm not knowledgeable in Germanic and Anglo-Saxon roots. If someone could enlighten me, that would be nice

Also, I owe an apology to Nameless for mistakenly using a strawman. . . at least I think I did. Sorry.

[soullight]

I believe that there is a triune too being - Thought, Feeling and Emotion. This assembledge interprets what we hear, sense and see, and so works closely together too engender a consciouness, which gives birth to an awareness of the physcal realm of being. An inanimate thing simply is being, in relation to our awareness of it existing
in a shared moment with our conscious existence of self.

[Chell]

Okay, l define being a soul, spirit,consince, (sorry can't spell the word at the moment) the state of being, as in who we are presently, not what we were in the womb and not after death, unless you want to get into spirits and ghosts

[soullight]

I interpret soul and spirit to be a euthinism for the essence or source of consciouness, in some respect I percieve it as being correct; in that these are profound words to capture or embody the intangible, elusive nature of the heart, which is the core of being.

[Chell]

l would say that the spirit and the soul are the core of the being myself but only because l had an experience in losing someone and it was like part of losing myself, but l felt her spirit and soul leaving me, the moment she died