Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Interpreting Being: The role of words and their meaning

Expand Messages
  • decker150
    We would not be discussing Being at all if it was not for the fact that we communicators . Existentialism as a philosophy, however much it seeks to arise
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 30, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      We would not be discussing 'Being' at all if it was not for the fact
      that we 'communicators'. Existentialism as a philosophy, however much
      it seeks to arise from the ground of being-in-itself, is nontheless a
      preoccupation with words and their meaning. Yet, we are sure to
      acknowledge that being-in-itself does not mainly direct our attention
      in the direction of mere words or their meaning, but to some
      'thing-in-itself' independent from words and their meaning. Words
      serve in the role of refering us on past meaning.
      For instance, the word 'essence' seems to signify 'consciousness and
      meaning' which signifies 'perception'. What we typical say is that
      there is a big difference between reality on the one hand and mere
      perception on the other. Perception arises out of the fact that we
      are sensate beings with sensory organs. Without them (as in the case
      of sensory deprivation) we are in the dark. The consciousness we
      experience (conscious awareness) occurs in a brain state supplied by
      sensory acitivity. The role of consciousness is to reflect the data
      supplied by sensory imput. Conscious experience depends upon
      'reality' being-there, what an Existentialist would refer to by the
      word Da-sein. Da-sein is 'the-being-there' of 'the real' So what do
      words and their meaning do for us. It was Parmenedes who said "for
      Being and Thinking are the same'. Yet, we would not be able to think
      very much at all if we lacked in 'words' and 'their meaning'. So we
      wonder, how does 'essence' deal with our language-dependency. As it
      turns out, language is the single greatest filter on perception. Our
      entire state of awareness is influence by language and meaning. Yet,
      this is how we interpret Being, but shrouding it with all kinds of
      'meaning'. What a paradox. Out of one corner of his mouth, Sartre
      tells us that Being-in-itself is without meaning, and yet proceeds to
      interpret 'a meaning' which he intellectually constructs by being an
      language dedicated writer, bound himself to a world of meaning. What
      I find avoided by the existential dialogue, is not the meaning of
      Being, but the 'being-there-of-meaning' which is as much 'there' as
      anything else 'is' that has a place in what we acknowledge as 'an
      existent."

      Anyone have any thoughts on this

      Joe
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.