more from this thinker     |     more from this text

Single Idea 14253

[filed under theme 7. Existence / A. Nature of Existence / 3. Being / b. Being and existence ]

Full Idea

It seems wrong to identify the 'being' of an object, its being what it is, with its existence. In one respect existence is too weak; for there is more to an object than mere existence; also too strong, for an object's nature need not include existence.

Gist of Idea

An object's 'being' isn't existence; there's more to an object than existence, and its nature doesn't include existence

Source

Kit Fine (Ontological Dependence [1995], I)

Book Ref

-: 'Aristotelian Society' [], p.274

A Reaction

The word 'being' has been shockingly woolly, from Parmenides to Heidegger, but if you identify it with a thing's 'nature' that strikes me as much clearer (even if a little misty).

The 4 ideas with the same theme [contrast between being and actual existence]:

14161 Many things have being (as topics of propositions), but may not have actual existence [Russell]
16966 Philosophers tend to distinguish broad 'being' from narrower 'existence' - but I reject that [Quine]
12323 Existence is Being itself, but only as our thought decides it [Badiou]
14253 An object's 'being' isn't existence; there's more to an object than existence, and its nature doesn't include existence [Fine,K]