>>23341474
>There's a difference between it being differentiated out in the world and our unique subjectivity of drawing our attention to it.

Our unique subjectivity participate in the world, and gathers the things as they are themselves. Illusion, mistake, partakes with truth. If something "is" in the world, independent of our subjectivity, it must "be" the "same way" we call anything "being". In fact, something in the world must be individuated to "be". Difference inhabits the world, and it would be presposterous to believe it to be relative to subjectivity, as if subjectivity was contingent in any way. A pure being in the world, pure presence would be identity and thus nothing. Presence and absence opposition reside in the world, it partakes in truth. In fact, pure presence (real presence opposed to phenomenal presence) would be identical to pure absence.

>A three world label does not mean that the referent is three. The referents in each case are one.

Let's count the differences. There are 6 "instances", and 3 species of instances, "Being", "qua", "Nothing". There are no more differences than these. Qua means "as itself", "in itself", alone. Qua means then pure identity, an identity which adds nothing. We are left with "Being" and "Nothing". These 2 are individuated in the fact that one is not the other, one is different from the other. But of course, when you differentiate something from another, there is a first and a second. The first is called "Nothing", the other "Being", or the other way around. What you're really doing is differentiating 2 nothings, and keeping them individuated, putting one above the other, because differentiation is always "asymmetrical" (one is not the other after all). Being and nothing dont come already individuated, any essence is already a composition of difference and identity.

>It would still be a thing, just undifferentiated. You are not grasping how radical nothingness is and you're merely stuck in the relative gradations of negation.

"It" would still "be" "a" "thing", just "undifferentiated". Undifferentiated how ? You dont choose whats undifferentiated. Saying it doesnt mean you're making sense. You can show nothing, but you're showing it with your finger. When you show nothing, your doing nothing but cutting around nothing, and say "this nothing is not this other one". It is only by cutting around nothings that we make sense of all that.

Nothingness is precisely nothing, I grasp how radical it is, but I think you dont grasp how what you call "being" isnt in any way what you think it is. The difference between nothing and nothing precedes any individuation that would make one "being" and the other "not the first one".

What do you mean gradations of negation ? My view is that there is no gradation whatsoever of being or negation. Being is univocal, anything is always univocal. Identity is true, difference is true, everything is true. Things are only themselves, no more no less etc.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/lit/

Thread:

Plato's Parmenides and Heidegger