tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
What do you mean by an individual "will"?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is a 'Being'?
- Thread starter Willamena
- Start date
kadzbiz
..........................
"May"? So now you have some doubt? So if an animal is not self aware, it is not a being?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
You are jumping to conclusions, a self aware being may recognize itself in a mirror, however, recognizing oneself in the mirror is not a test of self awareness.
I expressed no doubts.
kadzbiz
..........................
I'm not jumping to conclusions. I can't say what self aware is exactly, I'm just saying what the testers said. Do you think that all creatures are self aware?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
No, I do not.
Is the oak self aware? No, it has no means to be so.
Is bacteria self aware? No, it simply reacts to stimuli, and is not aware of itself as an individual.
Is an ant self aware? No, no individualistic behavior is observed.
Are they all a part of nature? Yes.
Are they Beings? No
I'm not. I'm being.Yes, I believe you are a Being.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Or, your are a Being, who is beingI'm not. I'm being.
Is awareness, or "self-awareness", a verb?
What is the "means"?
Isn't a "reaction" a re-action in repsonse to awareness of action in relation to an individual?
Even when it's alone?
Why not? They "be" like "me".
kadzbiz
..........................
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
No evidence has been found that a tree can "think" or "be aware".
Automated response requires no sense of self. By that logic, my computer is "self aware" of the stimuli of my fingers on the keyboard.
When alone, an ant reacts no differently than with others of its kind.
They may "be", as a rock may "be", but they are not Beings.
Alright.
Generally the verb "react" refers to things that act in response to stimuli. Your kebyoard doesn't act at all, it is acted upon by fingers.
But it reacts.
Hence you said a Being is "self-aware"; a Being does more than "be". But for a conscious Being is "to be" nothing more than self awareness?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
No, the computer "reacts" to the "action" applied to the keyboard.
Yes it does, but it still shows no sense of awareness of itself as an individual.
Yes, a Being is self aware, aware of itself and it's individual thoughts.
This does not make the ant less important in Nature than the chimp, Being is just a descriptive of it's ability to sense its own individuality and self.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Well, I'm thinking along the lines of choice and desire. As a Christian, I couldn't help but think that when Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane, He prayed to His Father, asking that He not have to endure the anguish that lay ahead of Him. But in the end, He said, "Not my will but thine be done." To me, that implies that the Father and the Son are two individual "beings" since Jesus referred to two separate "wills" that were, at least for a very brief time, not in harmony with each other. I'm not sure exactly what Willemena was thinking of in her OP, but whenever I hear the word "Being" used to united the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as "one," I wonder how two "wills" can exist simultaneously in a single "being."
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Dissociative identity disorder
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
Have you read Heidegger, Willamena? Unfortunately, I have got around to him yet, but this question appears to be the focus of his philosophizing.
I would suggest that "being" is existing--just sittin' and existin', while "a being" is a thing that is existing.
For instance, you are being right now (you're existing). You are being philosophical (you are existing in a philosophical way). You are a being (you are a particular existent).
Now Sartes actually appeared to categorize the different forms of being: Being-for-Itself, Being-in-Itself, and Being-for-Others.
A Being-for-Itself is conscious of others as well as its own awareness. A Being-in-Itself is independant of consciousness, not conscious. A Being-for-Others is aware of another's consciousness.
I would suggest that "being" is existing--just sittin' and existin', while "a being" is a thing that is existing.
For instance, you are being right now (you're existing). You are being philosophical (you are existing in a philosophical way). You are a being (you are a particular existent).
Now Sartes actually appeared to categorize the different forms of being: Being-for-Itself, Being-in-Itself, and Being-for-Others.
A Being-for-Itself is conscious of others as well as its own awareness. A Being-in-Itself is independant of consciousness, not conscious. A Being-for-Others is aware of another's consciousness.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Maybe. Or, more likely, just false doctrine.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Theoretically a being is any form of individualized awareness that has identity or is aware of itself in relation to all that is around it.
I think any question can be asked but remain doubtful about the validity of some inquiries.
Just started. The first pages talk about prejudices and preconceptions surrounding the Question of Being, hence this thread.
A thing that is being, I agree. It could even be that the misnomed Being-as-entity is a take-off of the grammar of "is being".
Heidegger does the same.
I have a lot to learn (and judging by the size of this book, Heidegger has a lot to say).
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Or just aware.