Define "being"

[Fido]

Originally Posted by midas77

Fido, depends on what being you eat, I mean the fart will certainly smells differently.

Noses smell, and farts stink. Didn't you learn that in church?

[midas77]

Originally Posted by as0l0

I believe that Heidegger says something like...

being is a thing that has an issue with it's own existence...

I don't disagree.

I think, you are reffering to Heidegger;s Dasein. Dasein is only part of the totality of Beings. The only being that is concern with his Being. in simple word. Man.

[Paracelsus]

Are you defining being as a state? And if you are then is Being the functional presence of consciousness.

Or are you defining Being as the action of an (social) actor with particular ends?

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Paracelsus

Are you defining being as a state? And if you are then is Being the functional presence of consciousness.

Or are you defining Being as the action of an (social) actor with particular ends?

From the point of view of human beings, and there is no other, being is both a state and a condition we call life. Life depends upon matter, but all depends upon life. Without life we can give no meaning to existence on any level. So we might well say so long as we live that much is with little meaning, that nothing has meaning without our lives so that life is the equal of meaning, and so meaning is the essense of being.

[boagie]

Being is a relation within a system of relations, which it experiences as consciousness/reaction.

[Paracelsus]

Originally Posted by Fido

so that life is the equal of meaning, and so meaning is the essense of being.

I dont want to sound like a semiotic gorilla but essence is a quality or if you will an attribute of being, meaning is something we generate in the process of our existence, as much as i admire the ethical life i would not define ethics as the function and purpose of being. Ethics provide a moral light house in a sea of absurdity eg the current state of the world.

Being is the state of conscious perception which allows the individual to interact with other sentient beings to engage and experience life.

[Aedes]

One could argue that the whole idea of being inheres 100% in its linguistic use. Bertrand Russell pointed out that there were several sub-definitions of the verb "to be", including predication (i.e. fire IS hot) and existence (there IS a mountain). So "being" is a linguistic phenomenon first that relates subject / predicate or describes existence vs nonexistence.

VideCorSpoon could probably elaborate further.

[Paracelsus]

Language is the tool by which we are able to articulate our thoughts, this is not to deny the body as a totality and the affect that emotional or affective states experienced by the body have upon our mind. And should we believe that consciousness resides only in the mind?

Are feelings the consciousness of the body?( this could be new thread?)

If we perceive that perception is a function of the body which then allows the brain, does mind reside in the brain?, to formulate a response to both external stimulus and internal states then Being is both a state and an act.

Foucault stated that discourse constitutes its object, and if language is a function of being then the act of engaging in discursive practice enables being to be expressed and defined by its acts.

I have not studied Heidegger, Sein und Ziet its something on my current to do list, and correct me if i am wrong, but didn't he state that (our) Being is only recognised by the recognition/acknowledgement of other Being's?

But this i would imagine raises another question is being a function of Self? And if that is the case how then do we define Self?

[as0l0]

Originally Posted by midas77

I think, you are reffering to Heidegger;s Dasein. Dasein is only part of the totality of Beings. The only being that is concern with his Being. in simple word. Man.

I was hoping someone would correct that for me, so thankyou. Regarding the issue though, is my dog concerned by the fact that he is a dog?

Perhaps a question for another day...

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Paracelsus

I dont want to sound like a semiotic gorilla but essence is a quality or if you will an attribute of being, meaning is something we generate in the process of our existence, as much as i admire the ethical life i would not define ethics as the function and purpose of being. Ethics provide a moral light house in a sea of absurdity eg the current state of the world.

Being is the state of conscious perception which allows the individual to interact with other sentient beings to engage and experience life.

If you are saying that for people, being is life, well, yes. But life is different from any other form of being. We have to be made by living beings to have life. Life is not only a quality we have, but one we must share. And in relation to life all things have a value, a meaning in relation to their effect upon life. These things we find meaningful do not have meaning on their own, and we do not generate meaning. We recognize life in what supports life, and hold it highly valuable. We find no meaning in all that does not, in some sense, support life, and we find a negative meaning in that which endangers life. Ethics is one of those qualities concieved only of meaning because as a consideration, ethics support life. Since meaning is insepparable from life, so that one implies the other, I think it is pointless to try to talk of one without the other. Being is meaning, and when the matter of life, our meat, and our motation is removed from us all that is left that is common to all life is meaning. Certainly consciousness as we consider it is not common to all life. And still it has meaning.