Yesterday I thought about understanding statements that mix the use of "being" with generality. For example, a physics author writes water being liquid.. or a medical author writes the heart being the blood pumping organ .. or a botany specialist writes a fully grown palm tree being a big tree.. and so on of endless examples, are all those talking only about those things only as they are in their time because they are referring to their status using "being"? The answer to that is they are probably speaking about those things whenever they exist but that goes indirectly. Directly, yes, they are referring to the status of those things only during that time. Then that talks transfers to similar things in other time because they share the same status that was described with "being". The generality talk does not change "being" from status to continuous description although the end result may be concluded as continuous or always applicable if one sees the sharing of that description among all instances in different times. That is clearly not readily available or shown for the description "being necessary to the security of a free state" with all existence instances of the militia throughout time.
No comments:
Post a Comment