Page History

SCANNED PDF

On "Being"

 In Being and Some Philosophers: 2 f., E. Gilson speaks of "the fundamental ambiguity of being":

In a first acceptation, the word being is a noun. As such, it signifies either a being (that is, the substance, nature, and essence of anything existent), or being itself, a property common to all that which can rightly be said to be. In a second acceptation, the same word is the present participle of the verb 'to be.' As a verb, it no longer signifies something that is, nor even existence in general, but rather the very act whereby any given reality actually is, or exists.

Closely tracking Gilson, I. Leclerc, in Whitehead's Metaphysics:19 f 19f., com.ments comments on the same question as follows:

'\[B\]eing' is thoroughly ambiguous.

 It _can_ _be understood as signifying a concrete existent, but it can also have the meaning---to use Gilson's words---of 'a property common to all that can rightly be said to be.' This 'being as such' is readily capable of hypostatization; it can then be regarded as itself an ultimate existent, 'more real' than the concrete existing things. Further, even_ _if_ _'being' be not thus hypostatized, it is very easy to confuse its use as a gerund with that as a past_ _\[sic:_ _surely Leclerc means, as Gilson says,_ _present_\]_ _participle in, for example, the phrase 'the being of a thing.'  In the former \[use\] it would refer to the 'nature' or 'essence' of the thing; in the latter\[,\] to 'the fact that' the thing exists. All this ambiguity has, in much of the philosophical thought of the past, led to grave difficulties and error through the implicit shifting from one meaning to the other._

My conclusion from this is that "being" can be used to designate either of five different things:

1. the
2. the

3. the

1. the
2. the hypostatization of the

1. the what of a being (on a categorial-nominal-gerundive use of the term);

2. the what of what of any being simply as a being (on a transcendentalnominal-gerundive use of the term); that of a being (on a categorial-verbal-participial use of the term); that of any being simply as a being (on a transcendental-verbalparticipial use of the term); or what of any being as a being (on a transcendental-nominal-nomical-gerundive use of the term) into a transcendent being

2

beyond or in addition to all other beings, i.e., a "more real," or "eminently real," being.8March 2006 fundamental ambiguity of;