Does anyone say that Being is a primitive, unanalyzable, term?

That probably would make Being and Time the greatest work of nonsense of all time. I certainly feel able to imagine that Being is unanalyzable, even that Being and Time is almost entirely nonsense. Has Heidegger or any Heideggerian responded to any such complaint?

  • 2
    This complaint is easily countered regardless of the subject. Points and lines in Euclid are primitive, unanalyzable terms, yet the Elements are hardly nonsense. Most interesting concepts are explicated not by analysis into primitives, but by analysis of the interrelationships they enter, and their consequences. This realization is the big difference between the Aristotelian and modern analysis. – Conifold Feb 9 at 6:20
  • The whole point of the book is that it is about Being understanding itself, so the premise seems problematic in the first place: Being is human life in time (and cultural background)... That being said, Hölderlin indeed argued for Being as a primitive and unanalysable term, but both Being and "unanalysable" have a different meaning in that context – Philip Klöcking Feb 9 at 8:16
  • I'm not sure who says what, but the idea that the primitive unalayzable term transcends the being/non-being distinction is common. “In the Beginning … Then neither Being nor Not-being was," (The Rig-Veda). – PeterJ Feb 9 at 10:46
  • oh ok i thought being and time was explicitly trying to analyze or find the meaning of Being? @Conifold does the elements being "what is the meaning of a point"? – user35983 Feb 9 at 19:30
  • In a sense, yes, it is revealed in the role points play in Euclid's theorems, which sharpens the pre-existent intuitions. Heidegger's subject is, obviously, much more complex, but he too has the "being" enter various contexts (being-here, etc.) to evoke and sharpen the pre-philosophical grasp of the word. – Conifold Feb 11 at 3:17

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy