The
concept of Da-Sien was kind of hard to grasp for me. It may have just been because of the
translation issues, but the concept itself seems kind of elusive. It’s hard to really come up with a concrete explanation
or definition of such an abstract idea.
What is a being? It seems like
there’s no real right or correct or definitive answer. I found the approach to understanding what a
being is interesting. That we have to
look at our world as a whole to understand the little parts. It makes some sense but, there’s something
about it that just doesn’t fully compute.
Another thing that gets me is that in his definition of being, in order
to be a being, one must contemplate the idea being. But this doesn’t translate to other things
that people may consider a being. For
example, children. I can’t really think
of a five year old that contemplates what it means to be a being. So does this mean that the child isn’t a
being? That it is something else, something that has yet to become a
being? We treat children as beings
right? Children think. They have a
seemingly infinite imagination, but if Heidegger is right then they aren’t really
a being. If they aren’t beings then what
are they? This quest for understanding,
if you will, seems to be a futile one. I
don’t think Heidegger’s answer to what constitutes a being is wholly correct. I think he took a good stab at the question,
but his answer lacks something. I don’t
really know what it lacks, but it feels incomplete. Maybe it’s just not possible for us to really
understand what makes a being a being.
Well in your opinion, what constitutes as a being? Is it solely being a living creature? A living organism? Anything alive? Or is it more complex than that, as in does it need to have a conscious? Which then raises the same idea and point which you did, of whether or not an infant or a child would then be considered a being. I agree, it is a difficult concept to wrap our minds around, as we can barely even answer the question about ourselves, let alone other creatures or organisms in this universe. But does that make the entire quest for understanding futile? Does it make something pointless to pursue when it is difficult to attain it or reach an understanding with it? Or rather is that just another motivation behind why humans should try and reach understanding or comprehension? If we simply gave up when something was difficult, would we, humanity, have done things such as go to the moon or stopped fascism? Would the first tribes have tried to communicate with each other despite speaking different languages or dialects? Or would they have just given up and said “f it all” ? In my opinion, which is all that this really is, when something is difficult or a challenge, it is another reason to try and conquer or understand it better, as to show the will of the strong over the passiveness of the weak.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you completely!! It is impossible to fully identify what a being is. Just because a person does not think about identifying as a being does not mean they are not one. As your example says, a child, they are still beings even though they are young, they still have a consciousness and are aware of their surroundings. it does not matter if something can be understood or not, it has a reason to exist whether we know it or not. I mayt just be staying off topic and letting my thoughts flow, but who knows. Thats why everything unkown can always be argued trying to find meaning when maybe no one is correct yet. Maybe even something as simple as consciousness can be considered a being. People in general are these immensely complex creatures with senses, feeling and consciousness, but just because they do not think about themselves as a being does not mean they are not one. I think that a being should be anything that is living. Whether it is an organism, plant or intelligent creature, they are all beings. They all serve a specific purpose in regards to life in general, and I believe that constitutes a being. Everything that exists, exists for a purpose and if it were obsolete it would cease to exist. So maybe even inanimate objects still count as beings because they serve a purpose. It is an entirely complex topic that has no definitive answer, but rather an opinion and that is just my take on it. But as far as what you have said I agree completely.
ReplyDelete