diatribalArts

Heidegger writes that being is a circular entity and that is why current questions and demonstrations have been unyielding as to more than just an a priori understanding of the same. i would agree to his first point, in so much that the very question is an ontic expression of the ontological: being; for we who are being cannot observe it outside ourselves—collectively. One comes with too many presuppositions (this is unavoidable) to provide real, logical answers. It is as though logic (which must be viewed as it is a circle for the same reason of the ontic/ontilogical) intersects being in that it is part but not the whole, and being part cannot ascertain the whole. Because of this, why pursue the unanswerable any longer? If it exists in the a priori, leave it there to lie. Let philosophy pursue higher, more valuable questions. Let it cease with the what and move to the why. Of course, this assumes that logic intersects and is able to observe an external why (external to actual being thus the questioner/answerer). Let us view a person as a circle and his components circles, too, as in a Vhenn diagram. If this is so, then it is possible to conceive the why can contain all sets while still being transcendent to the “moment,” or ontic of being. This does not give one hope in uncovering the complete nature of being, but can become logically uncoverable to a knowable and worth while extent which demands attention and provides satisfaction in that why gives more direction than what. Which brings one full circle to the initial demands of the metaphysic of being.