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?
From a logical point of view, non-being is related to the concept of being in relation to complement. Non-being is only defined as that which is not being. As a consequence, non-existence in the strict sense of the word is the opposite of being.
Only in a relative sense can we speak of non-existence as a transition from one state of being to another. For example, if you throw a stool into a fire, it will lose its existence as a stool, but it will gain its existence as a pile of coals. However, in this example, being and non-being are opposite to each other.
There is no non — existence. There is only being. We can't even say anything about him. Parmenides was speaking. Otherwise, if there is being (as a space of understanding), then we can see patterns (learn), we can live effectively and achieve goals. Non-existence is the absence of a space within which we can understand and see meaning. The modern name for non-existence is absurd.
There is nothing unambiguous in the world. Being and non-being obey the dialectical law of anisotropic avoidance of pairness. Being passes into non-being and non-being into being.
There are 3 types of being-pure being, present being, and something. Pure is being without any definiteness. About it, you can only say that it is (Just some person). Cash being – being that is on the face that is visible (a specific person). Something is a DEFINITE present existence (The same concrete person in sickness and in health are two nechta). And non-existence is the negation of being. It is in genesis, but it is not visible (There is a book, but what is in it is not visible. This is non-existence). It would be more correct to call it-NOT BEING. NON-existence, indeed, is perceived as something opposite to being.
The presence of the particle ” not ” indicates the opposite, or, in philosophical terms, the transcendence of non-being in relation to being. But I would like to focus on another aspect of the problem of being and non-being. It is generally accepted that being is an objective reality, but this is not entirely true. According to Parmenides, being is identical to thinking, that is, it is knowable in contrast to non-being. But the history of science shows that it is precisely objective reality that is unknowable (science has no knowledge, but only practical experience). In other words, it is she, and man in particular, who is non-existence.
Counter-question: how are you going to apply this knowledge? Of course, I understand that philosophy needs to earn its bread after losing such a workhorse as its “natural” part, but you can't take it seriously.