Wayfarer

OK, point taken. I've deleted those comments. I was angry, because I've just been watching the reports on the unbelievable savagery that is entailed b...

I think that it's because, for Aristotle, and the ancients generally, the cosmos itself was alive. I don't know if it's really pantheistic, although n...

But I did draw attention to the quote provided earlier by Jamal: So there's regardless an ontological distinction accorded to humanity (acknowledging ...

I would go back and re-write the post that triggered this argument - it doesn't say what I set out to say, I sidetracked myself - but it seems pointle...

According to the membership of thephilosophyforum, distinguishing 'beings' from 'things' is an eccentric and idiosyncratic attitude. Somehow I'll just...

Even with my very limited knowledge of Aristotle, I’m sure this isn’t so. I think that a form by it’s nature is a universal, which is then individuate...

'The soul' - not that I'm saying that I believe there is one - is not necessarily the same as (or simply limited to) 'the person'. Recall the origin o...

Thanks, the materials you provide are very informative. I wonder if in the above passage, 'mind' is the translation of 'nous'? And again, even if Aris...

Yes I've run across that previously. Does look intriguing.

Serious question. The 'they' in 'they cannot share' are living things. But the 'active intellect' which is 'immortal and eternal' is a separate facult...

Do you think this element of Aristotle's metaphysics later became absorbed in the Christian doctrine of the immortality of the soul?

Let’s say the meaning of being, the quest for a unitive insight.

:clap:

In my lexicon, they don't exist, but they're real - real in the same way that, say, scientific principles and constraints and logical laws are real. I...

So it all comes back to: there is no appreciable difference between the verbs 'to be' and 'to exist'. Everyone here generally accepts that, but I diss...

Backing up a little, I'm confused by this: So, how can using the same word for both 'subjects' and 'non-subjects' be 'consistent with a fundamental di...

So, what do you think is the philosophical signficance of the fact that 'man alone' is capable of 'encountering the question of being', and that no ot...

Note that Heidegger singles out 'human beings', because they alone are able to encounter the question of 'what it means to be'. No other beings - part...

Finally. This is all I was getting at.

Sure. All I’ve said all along is that in common speech, beings are differentiated from things. But then I’ve used that to argue for there being a real...

I was not referring to 'being' as a verb, as already stated a number of times, but of the distinction between beings (as a general noun) and things (a...

So you agree then that the world is created by consciousness.

None of them directly refer to inanimate things as beings. They're discussions of 'the nature of being' in which context everything is subsumed under ...

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that, but it's been good discussion. I think the materials you cited locate the source of the debate, wh...

These are all relevant citations, but I'm afraid that they don't prove the contention that no distinction is made in philosophy between 'beings' and '...

Only because it’s been muddied.

You should tell that to all those Buddhist activists who go around liberating caged animals.

The passage from which the thread title is extracted, is as follows: Straw poll: who else participating in this thread accepts that rocks are beings? ...

So how does this stack up against Jung’s idea that the thread is opened with? Doesn’t this imply that Jung is saying that consciousness is a precondit...

Don't worry about it, then. A sentence would do, anything you can think of where a classical philosophy text refers to inanimate objects as 'beings'.

Have a look at these blog posts https://thepietythatliesbetween.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-is-naturalism-part-ii-kants.html https://thepietythatliesbet...

That is an oversimplification. It is an axiom of materialism that there is only one substance, in the philosophical sense, which is matter (nowadays m...

I will henceforth agree that anything that exists can be called an existent or an existing thing and that of anything that exists that it can be said ...

Don't know about that. See this. That is only what I tried to argue in the first place! I don't think I've done that, anywhere. That snippet you provi...

I agree. It's simply a robust exchange of views. And I acknowledge that my philosophical approach rubs a lot of people up the wrong way. What I said w...

Whereas you are?

Of course. But what I keep trying, and failing, to explain to you, is basically summarised by this point that I've already posted, from Jung, in the e...

It's certainly not articulated by Kant, I would agree with that. But then, if you adapt the idea of the collective unconscious, it's not difficult to ...

How far removed would the conception of a collective unconscious be from Schopenhauer's conception of 'the Will'? I doesn't strike me as much of an in...

I say that beings are subjects of experience, which is a simple fact. As for the various meanings of the verb 'to be', it's a different matter, but it...

:up: This point is also made in The Hidden Self: This is why a lot of what is paraded around by the media prophets of scientism as secular humanism is...

How so? I had argued that the meaning of being as understood in ontology (derived from the Greek 'to be') is different to our usage of the verb 'to ex...

You might also recall the many heated arguments I got into with a former mod over this topic. He sent me a copy of an apparently classic academic pape...

You mean, ‘on thephilosophyforum’. :wink:

Well, sure, but it's well known that one of the bases of Aristotle's metaphysics was precisely the elaboration of the different meanings of the verb '...

Can you point to a specific example?

I think it's a fair analysis. It's not that I find it annoying, but I'm at a loss that the distinction accorded to beings as distinct from things seem...

The OP plainly doesn't want to go down this road so I'll leave it at that.

To provide a bit more context, here is the sentence you quote with the preceding sentence: (Emphasis in original). I don't know if he's expressing a '...