5 Answers

  1. No, because the criteria (value scale) here is inevitably arbitrary.

    Both when the global answer is “in general”, and when adding new introductory ones. Being can be very, very different, including terrible and at the same time without the possibility of choosing non-being.

  2. It is not possible to prove this. It is impossible to compare what in our understanding has certain properties, signs established by the five senses and what we cannot perceive by the mentioned 5 senses. However, thinking, due to its multi-layered nature, operates (manipulates) the concepts of both being and”non-being”. It depends on the level of the conscious person, what is his being / non-being and what he prefers.

  3. The concept of “better” is internal to the concept of “being”. “Better “does not exist outside of” being”, since it is determined by the reasons caused by”being”. And “non-being” is external to “being”. Therefore, “better” does not apply to “non-existence”. These are two unrelated worlds — the world in which something can be better or worse, and the world in which non-existence is located.

  4. This is provable if we consider the conformity of an object to its essence to be good.

    The proof is very simple. A being (conscious or not-it doesn't matter) can exist only in being. The essence of a being, after all, is existence (I apologize for the tautology). Therefore, outside of being, it cannot correspond to its essence. If the conformity of an object to its essence is good, and the discrepancy is evil, then we have proved that being for a being is better than non-being.

  5. If we take being as something real and not theoretical (and do not fall into sophisms), then definitely yes, because being itself is something that most of us value, and the more conscious we are, the more we value it. Therefore, it can be argued that the form of being that we know is preferable to the absence of it.

    With regard to the bad forms of being, one can immediately refute any argument that being can be painful in this way: no one can claim that non-being is better, because no one who can claim is non-existent.

Leave a Reply