Being - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Being

Being
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Being is an extremely broad concept encompassing objective and subjective features of reality and
existence. Anything that partakes in being is also called a "being", though often this usage is
limited to entities that have subjectivity (as in the expression "human being"). The notion of
"being" has, inevitably, been elusive and controversial in the history of philosophy, beginning in
Western philosophy with attempts among the pre-Socratics to deploy it intelligibly.

As an example of efforts in recent times, Martin Heidegger (who himself drew on ancient Greek
sources) adopted German terms like Dasein to articulate the topic.[1] Several modern approaches
build on such continental European exemplars as Heidegger, and apply metaphysical results to the
understanding of human psychology and the human condition generally (notably in the
Existentialist tradition).

By contrast, in mainstream Analytical philosophy the topic is more confined to abstract

investigation, in the work of such influential theorists as W. V. O. Quine, to name one of many. One
most fundamental question that continues to exercise philosophers is put by William James: "How
comes the world to be here at all instead of the nonentity which might be imagined in its place? ...
from nothing to being there is no logical bridge."[2]

Contents
1 The substantial being
1.1 Being and the substance theorists
1.2 Aristotle's theory of act and potency
2 The transcendental being
2.1 Thomistic analogical predication of being
2.2 The transcendentals
3 Being in Islamic philosophy
4 Being in the Age of Reason
4.1 Empiricist doubts
4.2 Idealist systems
5 Being in continental philosophy and existentialism
6 Semantic description
7 Quotations
8 See also
9 Notes
10 References
11 External links

1 of 12 4/20/2017 7:14 PM
Being - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being

The substantial being

Being and the substance theorists

The deficit of such a bridge was first encountered in history by the Pre-Socratic philosophers
during the process of evolving a classification of all beings (noun). Aristotle, who wrote after the
Pre-Socratics, applies the term category (perhaps not originally) to ten highest-level classes. They
comprise one category of substance (ousiae) existing independently (man, tree) and nine categories
of accidents, which can only exist in something else (time, place). In Aristotle, substances are to be
clarified by stating their definition: a note expressing a larger class (the genus) followed by further
notes expressing specific differences (differentiae) within the class. The substance so defined was a
species. For example, the species, man, may be defined as an animal (genus) that is rational
(difference). As the difference is potential within the genus; that is, an animal may or may not be
rational, the difference is not identical to, and may be distinct from, the genus.

Applied to being, the system fails to arrive at a definition for the simple reason that no difference
can be found. The species, the genus, and the difference are all equally being: a being is a being
that is being. The genus cannot be nothing because nothing is not a class of everything. The trivial
solution that being is being added to nothing is only a tautology: being is being. There is no simpler
intermediary between being and non-being that explains and classifies being.

Pre-Socratic reaction to this deficit was varied. As substance

theorists they accepted a priori the hypothesis that appearances
are deceiving, that reality is to be reached through reasoning.
Parmenides reasoned that if everything is identical to being and
being is a category of the same thing then there can be neither
differences between things nor any change. To be different, or
to change, would amount to becoming or being non-being; that
is, not existing. Therefore, being is a homogeneous and
non-differentiated sphere and the appearance of beings is
illusory. Heraclitus, on the other hand, foreshadowed modern
thought by denying existence. Reality does not exist, it flows,
and beings are an illusion upon the flow. The Being according to
Parmenides: a sphere.
Aristotle knew of this tradition when he began his Metaphysics,
and had already drawn his own conclusion, which he presented
under the guise of asking what being is:[3]

"And indeed the question which was raised of old is raised now and always, and is
always the subject of doubt, viz., what being is, is just the question, what is substance?
For it is this that some assert to be one, others more than one, and that some assert to be
limited in number, others unlimited. And so we also must consider chiefly and primarily
and almost exclusively what that is which is in this sense."

2 of 12 4/20/2017 7:14 PM
Being - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being

and reiterates in no uncertain terms:[4] "Nothing, then, which is not a species of a genus will have
an essence only species will have it ....". Being, however, for Aristotle, is not a genus.

Aristotle's theory of act and potency

One might expect a solution to follow from such certain language but none does. Instead Aristotle
launches into a rephrasing of the problem, the Theory of Act and Potency. In the definition of man
as a two-legged animal Aristotle presumes that "two-legged" and "animal" are parts of other beings,
but as far as man is concerned, are only potentially man. At the point where they are united into a
single being, man, the being, becomes actual, or real. Unity is the basis of actuality:[5] "... 'being' is
being combined and one, and 'not being' is being not combined but more than one." Actuality has
taken the place of existence, but Aristotle is no longer seeking to know what the actual is; he
accepts it without question as something generated from the potential. He has found a "half-being"
or a "pre-being", the potency, which is fully being as part of some other substance. Substances, in
Aristotle, unite what they actually are now with everything they might become.

The transcendental being

Some of Thomas Aquinas' propositions were reputedly condemned by tienne Tempier, the local
Bishop of Paris (not the Papal Magisterium itself) in 1270 and 1277,[6][7] but his dedication to the
use of philosophy to elucidate theology was so thorough that he was proclaimed a Doctor of the
Church in 1568. Those who adopt it are called Thomists.

Thomistic analogical predication of being

In a single sentence, parallel to Aristotle's statement asserting that being is substance, St. Thomas
pushes away from the Aristotelian doctrine:[8] "Being is not a genus, since it is not predicated
univocally but only analogically." His term for analogy is Latin analogia. In the categorical
classification of all beings, all substances are partly the same: man and chimpanzee are both
animals and the animal part in man is "the same" as the animal part in chimpanzee. Most
fundamentally all substances are matter, a theme taken up by science, which postulated one or more
matters, such as earth, air, fire or water (Empedocles). In today's chemistry the carbon, hydrogen,
oxygen and nitrogen in a chimpanzee are identical to the same elements in a man.

The original text reads, "Although equivocal predications must be reduced to univocal, still in
actions, the non-univocal agent must precede the univocal agent. For the non-univocal agent is the
universal cause of the whole species, as for instance the sun is the cause of the generation of all
men; whereas the univocal agent is not the universal efficient cause of the whole species (otherwise
it would be the cause of itself, since it is contained in the species), but is a particular cause of this
individual which it places under the species by way of participation. Therefore the universal cause
of the whole species is not an univocal agent; and the universal cause comes before the particular
cause. But this universal agent, whilst it is not univocal, nevertheless is not altogether equivocal,
otherwise it could not produce its own likeness, but rather it is to be called an analogical agent, as

3 of 12 4/20/2017 7:14 PM
Being - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being

all univocal predications are reduced to one first non-univocal analogical predication, which is
being."[9]

If substance is the highest category and there is no substance, being, then the unity perceived in all
beings by virtue of their existing must be viewed in another way. St. Thomas chose the analogy: all
beings are like, or analogous to, each other in existing. This comparison is the basis of his Analogy
of Being. The analogy is said of being in many different ways, but the key to it is the real
distinction between existence and essence. Existence is the principle that gives reality to an essence
not the same in any way as the existence: "If things having essences are real, and it is not of their
essence to be, then the reality of these things must be found in some principle other than (really
distinct from) their essence."[10] Substance can be real or not. What makes an individual substance
a man, a tree, a planet real is a distinct act, a "to be", which actuates its unity. An analogy of
proportion is therefore possible:[10] "essence is related to existence as potency is related to act."

Existences are not things; they do not themselves exist, they lend themselves to essences, which do
not intrinsically have them. They have no nature; an existence receives its nature from the essence
it actuates. Existence is not being; it gives being here a customary phrase is used, existence is a
principle (a source) of being, not a previous source, but one which is continually in effect. The
stage is set for the concept of God as the cause of all existence, who, as the Almighty, holds
everything actual without reason or explanation as an act purely of will.

The transcendentals

Aristotle's classificatory scheme had included the five predicables, or characteristics that might be
predicated of a substance. One of these was the property, an essential universal true of the species,
but not in the definition (in modern terms, some examples would be grammatical language, a
property of man, or a spectral pattern characteristic of an element, both of which are defined in
other ways). Pointing out that predicables are predicated univocally of substances; that is, they refer
to "the same thing" found in each instance, St. Thomas argued that whatever can be said about
being is not univocal, because all beings are unique, each actuated by a unique existence. It is the
analogous possession of an existence that allows them to be identified as being; therefore, being is
an analogous predication.

Whatever can be predicated of all things is universal-like but not universal, category-like but not a
category. St. Thomas called them (perhaps not originally) the transcendentia, "transcendentals",
because they "climb above" the categories, just as being climbs above substance. Later academics
also referred to them as "the properties of being."[11] The number is generally three or four.

Being in Islamic philosophy

The nature of "being" has also been debated and explored in Islamic philosophy, notably by Ibn
Sina (Avicenna), Suhrawardi, and Mulla Sadra.[12]
A modern linguistic approach which notices that Persian language has exceptionally developed two

4 of 12 4/20/2017 7:14 PM
Being - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being

kinds of "is"es, i.e. ast ("is", as a copula) and hast (as an existential "is") examines the linguistic
properties of the two lexemes in the first place, then evaluates how the statements made by other
languages with regard to being can stand the test of Persian frame of reference.

It is noticed that the original language of the source, e.g. Greek, German and English, has only one
word for two concepts, ast and hast, or, like Arabic, has no word at all for either word. It therefore
exploits the Persian hast (existential is) versus ast (predicative is or copula) to address both Western
and Islamic ontological arguments on being and existence.[13]

This linguistic method shows the scope of confusion created by languages which cannot
differentiate between existential be and copula. It manifests, for instance, that the main theme of
Heidegger's Being and Time is ast (is-ness) rather than hast (existence). When, in the beginning of
his book, Heidegger claims that people always talk about existence in their everyday language,
without knowing what it means, the example he resorts to is: "the sky is blue" which in Persian can
be ONLY translated with the use of the copula ast, and says nothing about being or existence.

In the same manner, the linguistic method addresses the ontological works written in Arabic. Since
Arabic, like Latin in Europe, had become the official language of philosophical and scientific
works in the so-called Islamic World, the early Persian or Arab philosophers had difficulty
discussing being or existence, since the Arabic language, like other Semitic languages, had no verb
for either predicative "be" (copula) or existential "be". So if you try to translate the aforementioned
Heidegger's example into Arabic it appears as ( viz. "The Sky-- blue") with no linking
"is" to be a sign of existential statement. To overcome the problem, when translating the ancient
Greek philosophy, certain words were coined like aysa (from Arabic laysa 'not') for 'is'.
Eventually the Arabic verb wajada (to find) prevailed, since it was thought that whatever is
existent, is to be "found" in the world. Hence existence or Being was called wujud (Cf.
Swedish finns [found]> there exist; also the Medieval Latin coinage of exsistere 'standing out (there
in the world)' > appear> exist).
Now, with regard to the fact that Persian, as the mother tongue of both Avicenna and Sadr, was in
conflict with either Greek or Arabic in this regard, these philosophers should have been warned
implicitly by their mother tongue not to confuse two kinds of linguistic beings (viz. copula vs.
existential). In fact when analyzed thoroughly, copula, or Persian ast ('is') indicates an ever-moving
chain of relations with no fixed entity to hold onto (every entity, say A, will be dissolved into "A is
B" and so on, as soon as one tries to define it). Therefore, the whole reality or what we see as
existence ("found" in our world) resembles an ever-changing world of ast (is-ness) flowing in time
and space. On the other hand, while Persian ast can be considered as the 3rd person singular of the
verb 'to be', there is no verb but an arbitrary one supporting hast ('is' as an existential be= exists)
has neither future nor past tense and nor a negative form of its own: hast is just a single
untouchable lexeme. It needs no other linguistic element to be complete (Hast. is a complete
sentence meaning "s/he it exists"). In fact, any manipulation of the arbitrary verb, e.g. its
conjugation, turns hast back into a copula.

Eventually from such linguistic analyses, it appears that while ast (is-ness) would resemble the
world of Heraclitus, hast (existence) would rather approaches a metaphysical concept resembling

5 of 12 4/20/2017 7:14 PM
Being - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being

the Parmenidas's interpretation of existence.

In this regard, Avicenna, who was a firm follower of Aristotle, could not accept either Heraclitian
is-ness (where only constant was change), nor Parmenidean monist immoveable existence (the hast
itself being constant). To solve the contradiction, it so appeared to Philosophers of Islamic world
that Aristotle considered the core of existence (i.e. its substance/essence) as a fixed constant, while
its facade (accident) was prone to change. To translate such a philosophical image into Persian it is
like having hast (existence) as a unique constant core covered by ast (is-ness) as a cloud of
ever-changing relationships. It is clear that the Persian language, deconstructs such a composite as a
sheer mirage, since it is not clear how to link the interior core (existence) with the exterior shell
(is-ness). Furthermore, hast cannot be linked to anything but itself (as it is self-referent).

The argument has a theological echos as well: assuming that God is the Existence, beyond time and
space, a question is raised by philosophers of the Islamic world as how he, as a transcendental
existence, may ever create or contact a world of is-ness in space-time.

However, Avicenna who was more philosopher than theologian, followed the same line of
argumentation as that of his ancient master, Aristotle, and tried to reconcile between ast and hast,
by considering the latter as higher order of existence than the former. It is like a hierarchical order
of existence. It was a philosophical Tower of Babel that the restriction of his own mother tongue
(Persian) would not allow to be built, but he could maneuver in Arabic by giving the two concepts
the same name wujud, although with different attributes. So, implicitly, ast (is-ness) appears as
" momken-al-wujud" (contingent being), and hast (existence) as " wjeb-
al-wujud" (necessary being).

On the other hand, centuries later, Sadr, chose a more radical rout, by inclining towards the reality
of ast (is-ness), as the true mode of existence, and tried to get rid of the concept of hast (existence
as fixed or immovable). Thus, in his philosophy, the universal movement penetrates deep into the
Aristotelian substance/essence, in unison with changing accident. He called this deep existential
change harekat-e jowhari (Substantial Movement). It is obvious that in such a
changing existence, the whole world has to go through instantaneous annihilation and recreation
incessantly, while as Avicenna had predicted in his remarks on Nature, such a universal change or
substantial movement would eventually entail the shortening and lengthening of time as well which
has never been observed. This logical objection, which was made on Aristotle's argumentation,
could not be answered in the ancient times or medieval age, but now it does not sound
contradictory to the real nature of Time (as addressed in relativity theory), so by a reverse
argument, a philosopher may indeed deduce that everything is changing (moving) even in the
deepest core of Being.

Being in the Age of Reason

Although innovated in the late medieval period, Thomism was dogmatized in the Renaissance.
From roughly 1277 to 1567, it dominated the philosophic landscape. The rationalist philosophers,
however, with a new emphasis on Reason as a tool of the intellect, brought the classical and

6 of 12 4/20/2017 7:14 PM
Being - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being

medieval traditions under new scrutiny, exercising a new concept of doubt, with varying outcomes.
Foremost among the new doubters were the empiricists, the advocates of scientific method, with its
emphasis on experimentation and reliance on evidence gathered from sensory experience. In
parallel with the revolutions against rising political absolutism based on established religion and the
replacement of faith by reasonable faith, new systems of metaphysics were promulgated in the
lecture halls by charismatic professors, such as Immanuel Kant, and Hegel. The late 19th and 20th
centuries featured an emotional return to the concept of existence under the name of existentialism.
These philosophers were concerned mainly with ethics and religion. The metaphysical side became
the domain of the phenomenalists. In parallel with these philosophies Thomism continued under the
protection of the Catholic Church; in particular, the Jesuit order.

Empiricist doubts

Rationalism and empiricism have had many definitions, most concerned with specific schools of
philosophy or groups of philosophers in particular countries, such as Germany. In general
rationalism is the predominant school of thought in the multi-national, cross-cultural Age of reason,
which began in the century straddling 1600 as a conventional date,[14] empiricism is the reliance on
sensory data[15] gathered in experimentation by scientists of any country, who, in the Age of
Reason were rationalists. An early professed empiricist, Thomas Hobbes, known as an eccentric
denizen of the court of Charles II of England (an "old bear"), published in 1651 Leviathan, a
political treatise written during the English civil war, containing an early manifesto in English of
rationalism.

Hobbes said:[16]

"The Latines called Accounts of mony Rationes ... and thence it seems to proceed that
they extended the word Ratio, to the faculty of Reckoning in all other things....When a
man reasoneth hee does nothing else but conceive a summe totall ... For Reason ... is
nothing but Reckoning ... of the consequences of generall names agreed upon, for the
marking and signifying of our thoughts ...."

In Hobbes reasoning is the right process of drawing conclusions from definitions (the "names
agreed upon"). He goes on to define error as self-contradiction of definition ("an absurdity, or
senselesse Speech"[17]) or conclusions that do not follow the definitions on which they are
supposed to be based. Science, on the other hand, is the outcome of "right reasoning," which is
based on "natural sense and imagination", a kind of sensitivity to nature, as "nature it selfe cannot
erre."

Having chosen his ground carefully Hobbes launches an epistemological attack on metaphysics.
The academic philosophers had arrived at the Theory of Matter and Form from consideration of
certain natural paradoxes subsumed under the general heading of the Unity Problem. For example,
a body appears to be one thing and yet it is distributed into many parts. Which is it, one or many?

7 of 12 4/20/2017 7:14 PM
Being - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being

Aristotle had arrived at the real distinction between matter and form, metaphysical components
whose interpenetration produces the paradox. The whole unity comes from the substantial form and
the distribution into parts from the matter. Inhering in the parts giving them really distinct unities
are the accidental forms. The unity of the whole being is actuated by another really distinct
principle, the existence.

If nature cannot err, then there are no paradoxes in it; to Hobbes, the paradox is a form of the
absurd, which is inconsistency:[18] "Natural sense and imagination, are not subject to absurdity"
and "For error is but a deception ... But when we make a generall assertion, unlesse it be a true one,
the possibility of it is inconceivable. And words whereby we conceive nothing but the sound, are
those we call Absurd ...." Among Hobbes examples are "round quadrangle", "immaterial
substance", "free subject."[17] Of the scholastics he says:[19]

"Yet they will have us beleeve, that by the Almighty power of God, one body may be at
one and the same time in many places [the problem of the universals]; and many bodies
at one and the same time in one place [the whole and the parts]; ... And these are but a
small part of the Incongruencies they are forced to, from their disputing philosophically,
instead of admiring, and adoring of the Divine and Incomprehensible Nature ...."

The real distinction between essence and existence, and that between form and matter, which
served for so long as the basis of metaphysics, Hobbes identifies as "the Error of Separated
Essences."[20] The words "Is, or Bee, or Are, and the like" add no meaning to an argument nor do
derived words such as "Entity, Essence, Essentially, Essentiality", which "are the names of
nothing"[21] but are mere "Signes" connecting "one name or attribute to another: as when we say, "a
man is a living body", we mean not that the man is one thing, the living body another, and the is, or
being a third: but that the man, and the living body, is the same thing; ..." Metaphysiques, Hobbes
says, is "far from the possibility of being understood" and is "repugnant to natural reason."[22]

Being to Hobbes (and the other empiricists) is the physical universe:[23]

The world, (I mean ... the Universe, that is, the whole masse of all things that are) is
corporeall, that is to say, Body; and hath the dimension of magnitude, namely, Length,
Bredth and Depth: also every part of Body, is likewise Body ... and consequently every
part of the Universe is Body, and that which is not Body, is no part of the Universe: and
because the Universe is all, that which is no part of it is nothing; and consequently no
where."

Hobbes' view is representative of his tradition. As Aristotle offered the categories and the act of
existence, and Aquinas the analogy of being, the rationalists also had their own system, the great
chain of being, an interlocking hierarchy of beings from God to dust.

8 of 12 4/20/2017 7:14 PM
Being - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being

Idealist systems

In addition to the materialism of the empiricists, under the same aegis of Reason, rationalism
produced systems that were diametrically opposed now called idealism, which denied the reality of
matter in favor of the reality of mind. By a 20th-century classification, the idealists (Kant, Hegel
and others), are considered the beginning of continental philosophy, while the empiricists are the
beginning, or the immediate predecessors, of analytical philosophy.

Being in continental philosophy and existentialism

Some philosophers deny that the concept of "being" has any meaning at all, since we only define an
object's existence by its relation to other objects, and actions it undertakes. The term "I am" has no
meaning by itself; it must have an action or relation appended to it. This in turn has led to the
thought that "being" and nothingness are closely related, developed in existential philosophy.

Existentialist philosophers such as Sartre, as well as continental philosophers such as Hegel and
Heidegger have also written extensively on the concept of being. Hegel distinguishes between the
being of objects (being in itself) and the being of people (Geist). Hegel, however, did not think
there was much hope for delineating a "meaning" of being, because being stripped of all predicates
is simply nothing.

Heidegger, in his quest to re-pose the original pre-Socratic question of Being, wondered at how to
meaningfully ask the question of the meaning of being, since it is both the greatest, as it includes
everything that is, and the least, since no particular thing can be said of it. He distinguishes between
different modes of beings: a privative mode is present-at-hand, whereas beings in a fuller sense are
described as ready-to-hand. The one who asks the question of Being is described as Da-sein
("there/here-being") or being-in-the-world. Sartre, popularly understood as misreading Heidegger
(an understanding supported by Heidegger's essay "Letter on Humanism" which responds to
Sartre's famous address, "Existentialism is a Humanism"), employs modes of being in an attempt to
ground his concept of freedom ontologically by distinguishing between being-in-itself and being-
for-itself.

Being is also understood as one's "state of being," and hence its common meaning is in the context
of human (personal) experience, with aspects that involve expressions and manifestations coming
from an innate "being", or personal character. Heidegger coined the term "dasein" for this property
of being in his influential work Being and Time ("this entity which each of us is himselfwe shall
denote by the term 'dasein.'"[1]), in which he argued that being or dasein links one's sense of one's
body to one's perception of world. Heidegger, amongst others, referred to an innate language as the
foundation of being, which gives signal to all aspects of being.

Semantic description
While studying of meaning of being itself semantics traditionally appeal to the oldest sign

9 of 12 4/20/2017 7:14 PM
Being - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being

ouroboros - snake eating its own tail which describes the cyclical nature of being or eternity. In
mathematical logic sometimes used in this case the sign infinity, but indeed because of its
quantitive character this sign is also inappropriate to use in description of being. Several
experiments conducted by the cognitive psychologists in frames of Prototype theory in particular
show that some prototypes are formed on the basis of common features.[24] Lots of cultures

describe being as some sort of line - process that can have its beginning - birth ,

midst - some occasion of being , or doubled occasions - system , and the end - death

, as well it can exists in form of the smallest part of time - moment of being , or

show the whole its length both sides bounded - period of being .[25]

Quotations

As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light of
meaning in the darkness of mere being.
Carl Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections ch. II (1962)

Under the heading Individuality in Thought and Desire, Karl Marx (German Ideology, 1845),
says:

"It depends not on consciousness, but on being; not on thought, but on life; it depends on
the individual's empirical development and manifestation of life, which in turn depends
on the conditions existing in the world."

See also

Atman Philosophers
Becoming (philosophy)
Category of being Fromm, To Have or to Be?
Cogito ergo sum Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit
Copula (linguistics) Heidegger, Being and Time
Entity Immanuel Kant, Sapere aude
Essence Sartre, Essays in Existentialism and Being and Nothingness

10 of 12 4/20/2017 7:14 PM
Being - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being

Existence
Existentialism
Human being
Hypostasis
Infosphere
Noumenon
Object (philosophy)
Ontology
Organism
Ousia
Phenomenon
Physical ontology
Substance theory
Supreme being

Notes
1. Heidegger, Sein und Zeit, p. 27: "this entity
which each of us is himself ... we shall denote
by the term 'Dasein'."
2. James, William (1916). Some problems of
philosophy: a beginning of an introduction to
philosophy. New York: Longmans, Green and
Co. pp. 38, 40.
3. Aristotle. "Book VII Section 1 (paragraph
1028b)". Metaphysics.
4. Metaphysics Chapter VII, Section 4 (paragraph
1030a).
5. Metaphysics, Book IX, Chapter 10 (paragraph
1051b).
6. For text of condemnations 1277 (technically
still 1276 at the date, since before 25 of March)
see David Pich, La condemnation parisienne
de 1277, [1] (http://www.vrin.fr
/html/main.htm?action=loadbook&
isbn=2711614166), parallel Latin text with his
French translation, or online list Latin only with
footnotes, by Hans-Georg Lundahl, [2]
(http://petitlien.com/tempier)
7. Wallace, William A. Thomism and Its
Opponents. Dictionary of the Middle Ages. Ed.
Joseph R. Strayer. Vol. 12. New York: Scribner,
1982. 3845. Print.
8. Wippel, John F. (2000). The metaphysical
thought of Thomas Aquinas: from finite being
to uncreated being. Monographs of the Society
for Mediaeval and Renaissance Philosophy, No.
1. The Catholic University of America Press.
p. 75.
9. http://www.newadvent.org/summa
/1013.htm#article5
10. Kreyche 1959, p. 70
11. Aersten, Jan A. (1995), "Aquinas, St. Thomas",
in Kim, Jaegwon; Sosa, Ernest, A companion to
metaphysics, Blackwell Companions to
philosophy, pp. 2122
12. Iranian Personalities
(http://www.iranchamber.com/personalities
/msadra/mulla_sadra.php)
13. Toofan, M. Zabn ast y hast?(Language: is or
exists?. Ketb-e Tehran, 2000
14. "age of reason". dictionary.com. Retrieved
8 January 2009.
15. "empiricism". dictionary.com. Archived from
the original on 25 January 2009. Retrieved
9 January 2009.
16. Hobbes 1651, pp. 18, 2122
17. Hobbes 1651, p. 23
18. Hobbes 1651, p. 18
19. Hobbes 1651, p. 501.

11 of 12 4/20/2017 7:14 PM
Being - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being

20. Hobbes 1651, p. 500. 24. Neumann, P. G. (1977). Visual prototype

21. Hobbes 1651, pp. 498499. formation with discontinuous representation of
22. Hobbes 1651, pp. 496497. dimensions of variability. Memory &
23. Hobbes 1651, p. 497. Cognition, 5(2), 187-197.
25. Komogorov, Iurii (2015). In-form. Linguistic
constructor. Manual. FOP GUD. pp. 1641.

References
Gilson, tienne (1952). Being and Some Philosophers (2nd corrected and enlarged ed.).
Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies (PIMS).
Hobbes, Thomas (1904) [1651]. Waller, Alfred Rayney, ed. Leviathan: or, The matter, forme
& power of a commonwealth, ecclesiasticall and civill. Cambridge: University Press.
Kreyche, Robert J. (1959). First Philosophy: An Introductory Text in Metaphysics. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

External links
Corazzon, Raul (2010). "Theory and History of Ontology Wikiquote has
from a Philosophical Perspective". www.ontology.co. quotations related to:
Retrieved 9 October 2010. Being

Look up being in
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org Wiktionary, the free
/w/index.php?title=Being&oldid=771938671" dictionary.

Categories: Concepts in metaphysics Ontology Philosophy of life Reality

This page was last modified on 24 March 2017, at 11:13.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional
terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit
organization.

12 of 12 4/20/2017 7:14 PM