Bertrand Russell 2/3

Bertrand Russell was explicitly deployed by the "establishment" for his ideas on contaminating the culture and intellectual life of the United States.

You have been deployed by the establishment to make Anonymous White People look stupid.

Heidegger points out very clearly at the outset of his thought that Being (isness) is not a being. He then goes on to demonstrate what a genuinely philosophical question must ask : it must, in asking about beings, confront the other extreme possibility : no beings : nothing. Only when this question is asked is there philosophy. Plato and Aristotle called this moment "wonder". Heidegger agrees with them and also gives it a name : Ereignis (The Event).

Russell would have dismissed what in Heidegger's view is the fundamental question of metaphysics, i.e. Why is there anything rather than nothing ? on "logical" grounds. Because according to logic there cannot - could never - "be" nothing anyway, and so the question is nonsensical. But to say that something "is" is to attribute Being to it : isness is not the same as "a" being or the totality of beings : it somehow belongs to them all in advance of our speakiing about them, but it is not a being.

Being is not a "construct". Don't be ridiculous. Something exists. This existence is always the first. the most mysterious of questions.
And yes, when philosophy is philosophy it is perfect and no "progress" is possible. Bertrand Russell was a true philosopher when he was young. Unfortunately he gave up philosophy to write his silly opinions about politics and other trivial matters.

Being, as the highest of all the categories, which is not a category itself and cannot be defined in terms of anything else, is the whole of reality : is "is" itself. That's why when we try to talk about it we are forced to utter apparent (or real) absurdities. Bertrand Russell was a genius without doubt. I don't mind his later antics, which were all well meant. I don't think he understood Heidegger though : his strict adherence to logical thinking prevented him from being able to see ....

the question of the meaning of Being AS a question. In all other respects Bertrand Russell was a model philosopher. But this one question concerning the meaning of Being did not occur to him.

"Something exists" : what does that say ?

What if NOTHING exists ?

Something is not the same as its being. Being somehow belongs to a being in advance, But it is obviously not a being itself. What is it then ? Is it nothing ? Analytical philosophers are not analytical enough.

"What if nothing exists?" If something does exist, then the claim that "nothing exists" is false. You're simply playing around with the "~" sign. "~~(Ex) insert biconditional sign (Ex)"... "~~~(Ex) biconditional ~(Ex)" ad infinitum. This is a trivial question of logic.

My comment wasn't directed at you, but at BlacknWhitesAlright. I agreed with your earlier comment. They were correct. I disagree with your later comments.