Being

Dasein

Valentine's Day

Martin Heidegger

one-liner

is, for parmenides, something which does not exist. Light is not the opposite of darkness. In the essence of light, darkness is destroyed and overcome.

In the center of his work, Parmenides uproots the dualism of Being and not-Being, truth and appearance, light and darkness: Being does not exist because it is not not-Being (since not-Being would then be necessary for its Being),9 and light is not essentially the opposite of darkness... rather, in the essence of light, darkness is destroyed and overcome. (Blumenberg 1993 [1957] : 32)

is inherently and always already a sociable and inherently relational thing.

Moreover, for Sloterdijk being is never an isolated being. Much more than is true for Heidegger, being is social. Spatial being.

is a sphere entirely opposite from knowing, insofar as it is absolutely impossible for a subject to see or have insight into something while leaving itself out of the picture.

It is absolutely impossible for a subject to see or have insight into something while leaving itself out of the picture, so impossible that knowing and being are the most opposite of all spheres. Friedrich Nietzsche

is a wrongheaded notion based on the idea that there are subjects standing opposed to some substance. If we get rid of the presumption of the 'subject' then we also rid ourselves of the precondition for substance. We thus acquire 'degrees of being' in place of the confused idea of things which have being.

The concept of substance is a consequence of the concept of the subject: not the reverse! If we relinquish the soul, 'the subject,' the precondition for 'substance' in general disappears. One acquires degrees of being, one loses that which has being. (Nietzsche 'will to power' : 268-9ish)

is absolutely immanent. Redemption is not any 'outside' but an always determinate 'inside.

For Negri, 'we are immersed in Power... we are within Power and harbor no illusion of being outside of it or being on the margins,' (8) Yet this means that the same power that created the mess is available to turn everything around: as Negri says, drawing on Gilles Deleuze and Giorgio Agamben, 'Being [is] absolutely immanent. . . . Redemption [is] not any 'outside' but an always determinate 'inside.' '

is, along with non-being, a mere abstraction of thought which arises when becoming is analyzed. There is ultimately becoming.

Echoing the pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus, Hegel argues that there is neither being nor non-being, but only becoming. For Hegel, being and non-being are mere abstractions of thought, ideas that arise when becoming is analysed. For Hegel there is ultimately becoming. For Sartre there is ultimately being, or what Sartre refers to as being-in-itself. Sartre argues against Hegel that being is and non-being is not becuase being is logically prior to non-being and non-being exist only as a negation of being, as a borrowed being. Sartre refers to the negation of being as being-for-itself.

is, along with truth, a thing without a fixed nature readily accessible to us. We give different accounts of both at different times, and what they are at any given time depends in part on our questions and answers about them.

But being and truth do not have a fixed nature readily accessible to us. We give different accounts of them at different times, and what they are at any given time depends in part on our questions and answers about them. (inwood heidegger : 121)

being, n.Memes

Keep exploring being→

being