Although I myself wrote what came in the first post of this "being" series I did not notice how this simply follow from that despite its significance. Lets start from the beginning.
It seems that we can understand the use of the word "being" as always referring to the current status of that to which it refers then it may or may not extends from that in time. But what is this actually saying? What this is saying, in other words, that the continuation (or discontinuation) of the status to which the use of "being" refers is a characteristic of the thing to which "being" refers and has nothing to do with the use of that word. Still, in other words, the word "being" in itself refers only to the current status of the thing to which it refers while the continuation of that status depends only on the type of that thing. For example,you say:
The tree,being tall,...
Or
The tea, being hot,...
In both examples above, "being" refers to only the current status of tallness or hotness while the continuation of them depends on the thing to which the status or feature referred to by "being" belongs (tree and tea).
The same thing applies to the second amendment making the using of "being" in "being necessary to the security of a free state" only referring to the current status while judging the continuation of that status or feature was left to those who follow to decide based on what is in the real world.
No comments:
Post a Comment