Thinghood

“The Greek thinkers tended to take the notion of unity to be intimately connected with that of being…. Glossing over the details and simplifying the matter somewhat, I think it is fair to say that the connection between unity and being is as follows: whatever is said to be must possess some degree of unity. In order to see the point of this we must realize that “being” is here used in a somewhat restricted sense. What is excluded are accidental collections of things. Consider a set consisting of things e.g. the Empire State Building, Fidel Castro and the number 2. There is no denial that this set exists and hence has being in the sense of existence. But it does not have being in the sense we are after. It does indeed contain members that have being in this sense but it does not have being as such itself. … We are therefore concerned with being in the sense according to which only something which is a thing or an entity has being.”

Reference

E.K Emilsson, Plotinus on Sense-Perception

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s