Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
The difference between being and being in Heidegger is that being is a definite being, concrete, and being itself remains undefined, which clearly cannot be reached through being, since the displacement of being by being that began with Plato's philosophy when it was replaced by being(eidos) which is concrete being, that is, being is itself “is” Here is a quote true, it is from Bibikhin's translation, but it illustrates this difference between being and being: If Being is, we would inevitably have to recognize it as something that exists, and accordingly discover it among other things as the same. This audience�is there.�The audience�is�illuminated. We recognize the illuminated audience as something that exists without any hesitation. However, where in the entire audience will we find this ” is ” of hers?
Summing up once again, we can say that being is not something concrete, but what it means:to be, to be, is that which makes what exists exist, and what exists in turn is something concrete-something that exists.
To put it as simply as possible, then being is a certain subject, and being is what happens to it, that is, the subject of this subject. Heidegger suggests considering being precisely through the being: only through it will it be accessible to understanding, precisely as the object of this being.