Can doubt lead to a better understanding of “Being”?

Can it?

Insofar as language cannot adequately describe this concept of “being,” should we doubt (that is, not accept the truth of, call in to question) what it attempts to communicate to our faculties?

The more that is denied, filtered out, and shut out, the clearer the self becomes.

The question really is, what is being apart from our acceptance of the external world in relation to objects. Can is be conceived of? If the essence of man cannot be grasped without its continual relation, than to what extent can it do so and not lose a part of its individuality?

Heidegger speaks of one finding a “nearness of being” in learning to “exist in the nameless.” What is the denial of naming but doubt? To exist in the nameless is to refuse to describe and ascribe language to. And how else do we understand our existence but through language?

Is to experience something without ascribing a name to it true experience? Should one doubt, also, the ability of our senses to provide us with the essence of a thing? Is the truth that science sheds upon an object more true than the experience of it?

To be and remain in pure being is to withdraw into oneself apart from interpretation, but how is that state to be described?

Penny for your thoughts? Because mine can do nothing but reel and abstract into abstractions far from my ability to understand them.


4 thoughts on “Can doubt lead to a better understanding of “Being”?

  1. “Is the truth that science sheds upon an object more true than the experience of it?”

    Are you talking about the blue/black white/gold dress thing??

    I’m going to have to side with science (Photoshop) on that one. The colour picker tool does not misperceive blue!

    • I wasn’t, but it fits I suppose. The issue of color is a fair example of the difference between science and experience, especially as the experience of color is extremely subjective: relative to one’s eyesight (rod & cone count or lack thereof, shape of eyeball), lighting, and even mood. There are so many ranges of sight/color perception in which we, humans, only see an extremely small portion thereof that it’ is extremely difficult to claim knowledge of its property in an object.

  2. That’s way to much for my little mind to wrap itself around, but I will say that I think the essence of ‘being’ is found at its purest form in the eyes of a child. They live in the ‘nameless’, they doubt everything and must experience it for themselves, so they are experiencing life, they are being. As adults, we have experienced it all, so we think, and we no longer question our surroundings, we exist in them. In my way of thinking, to go back to doubting all we know would bring us back to ‘being’, at least in some form.

    • I love that, so true, thank you! I’ve thought of many “pure” things as in the senses of a child. Their mental capacities and just the way they process and react to things around them are fascinating. It’s a shame our brains change as they do in our 20’s.

      Thanks for the comment!

Penny for your thoughts....? Do share them here!

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s