more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
It has been fairly common in philosophy early and late to distinguish between being, as the broadest concept, and existence, as narrower. This is no distinction of mine; I mean 'exist' to cover all there is.
Gist of Idea
Philosophers tend to distinguish broad 'being' from narrower 'existence' - but I reject that
Source
Willard Quine (Existence and Quantification [1966], p.100)
Book Ref
Quine,Willard: 'Ontological Relativity and Other Essays' [Columbia 1969], p.100
A Reaction
I sort of agree with Quine, but 'being' has a role in philosophy that is not required in science and daily life, as the name of the central problem of ontology, which probably has to be broken down before any progress can happen.
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] |