Dialogos of Eide

Is ‘Being’ The Same For Everyone?

by Alva Noë

May 15, 2017 • Philosophical skepticism, in part coming from Decartes, considers the idea that it’s impossible to know another person’s reality. Alva Noë ponders this in relation to debates in today’s world.

Being is an Objectification of the EGO

So what do I mean. The commonality of the question posted by Ala Noe is to suggest that there is something that is the same between all of us. I pondered this,  as I look at what becomes self-evident in our pursuit of meaning “as being” is the same.

A first principle is a basic, foundational, self-evident proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption.

I descend to the objectified state,  as the same being.  What does this mean then that any self evident position must realize that we move from first principles. Hence,  establish an apriore existence as to our being “as more” then the commonality that we exist “as the EGO” modifies to become the objectification as us all being. A construct of this reality then? You see how much more we have in common then what was first believe as “being the same,” for everyone?

 We are confined to the outward marks, the mere behavior — and that’s just not enough to know another, to really understand him or her, or to trust.Alva Noë

So then the reality of an objectified existence placed as the outward language of appearance preceded by, an understanding of our EGO manufactured. A materialist definition of all action as a dire result of the expression of being, as our “measure of being.” But we are more are we not, then by its appearance and the question of skepticism,  of there being more then?

So yes there is more then the social constructed fabrication as the outward appearance of the commonality of our being. The measure,  of our being. So we must look past outward appearance to a more soulful understanding of the projection of an objectified world. The relation of Virtues toward our relation with regard to first principle “is” an inherent relation to being more soulful. A more soulful country then as a more soulful world rests in our being a more soulful person?

René Descartes

For the Rationalist philosopher René Descartes, virtue consists in the correct reasoning that should guide our actions. Men should seek the sovereign good that Descartes, following Zeno, identifies with virtue, as this produces a solid blessedness or pleasure. For Epicurus the sovereign good was pleasure, and Descartes says that in fact this is not in contradiction with Zeno’s teaching, because virtue produces a spiritual pleasure, that is better than bodily pleasure. Regarding Aristotle’s opinion that happiness depends on the goods of fortune, Descartes does not deny that these goods contribute to happiness, but remarks that they are in great proportion outside one’s own control, whereas one’s mind is under one’s complete control. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue#Ren.C3.A9_Descartes

 During Egyptian civilization, Maat or Ma’at (thought to have been pronounced *[muʔ.ʕat]), also spelled māt or mayet, was the ancient Egyptian concept of truth, balance, order, law, morality, and justice. Maat was also personified as a goddess regulating the stars, seasons, and the actions of both mortals and the deities. The deities set the order of the universe from chaos at the moment of creation. Her (ideological) counterpart was Isfet, who symbolized chaos, lies, and injustice.^[2][3]

 It is an interesting question regarding Justice. Believe it or not I have held this mantra at my lips for a long time. So yes then, I raise the question of what Justice means. Philosophically this blog entry has found the right place as to the questions regarding it.

The notion of justice as a virtue began in reference to a trait of individuals, and to some extent remains so, even if today we often conceive the justice of individuals as having some (grounding) reference to social justice. But from the start, the focus on justice as a virtue faced pressures to diffuse, in two different ways. Justice as a Virtue –LeBar, Mark and Slote, Michael, “Justice as a Virtue”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .

 I would have attended to the first part that the suggestion would be raised as to the “trait of an individual,”  and then lost as to the many thoughts each individual could have explain as being. . But I always sought something deeper in the individual…..as acting in accordance to some moral code. So the “symbol of Justice,”  goes way back in our historical ventures so as to see that the scales can be used to weight anything against something else? More to then,  that Justice can be logically deduced by our esteem lawyers to have us conclude what? Yes, a very interesting question.

In Kant we see the completion of the distinction between justice as a virtue and justice as a norm to which a virtue may or may not correspond. While Kant has a theory (or “doctrine”) of virtue, he distinguishes that theory precisely against a counterpoised theory of justice. The two are complementary elements in the “metaphysics of morals.” Moreover, the doctrine of justice itself has two parts, roughly corresponding to the distinction present since Plato’s work, between the role of justice in the individual and the role of justice in the state. Kant calls these “private right” and “public right,” respectively. But right in either case is not how Kant at least conceives of virtue; instead, it is a “condition” that can obtain between the moral agents comprising a moral or legal community, in virtue of their principles of choice in acting (Kant 1797). Little remains here of the notion of justice as a virtue of individuals as it began with the ancient Greeks. LeBar, Mark and Slote, Michael, “Justice as a Virtue”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .

 So what is judgement then,  as,  having but concluded? If there is but little justice left in the individual,  then how is such a private judgement made? I must add, that the understanding here then,  is that,”the doctrine of justice itself has two parts,” and that,  Justice,  once understood as virtue in the individual, does become an understanding of “Justice in the state.”

René Descartes

For the Rationalist philosopher René Descartes, virtue consists in the correct reasoning that should guide our actions. Men should seek the sovereign good that Descartes, following Zeno, identifies with virtue, as this produces a solid blessedness or pleasure. For Epicurus the sovereign good was pleasure, and Descartes says that in fact this is not in contradiction with Zeno’s teaching, because virtue produces a spiritual pleasure, that is better than bodily pleasure. Regarding Aristotle’s opinion that happiness depends on the goods of fortune, Descartes does not deny that these goods contribute to happiness, but remarks that they are in great proportion outside one’s own control, whereas one’s mind is under one’s complete control. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue#Ren.C3.A9_Descartes

 This understanding of virtue,  goes toward the foundation of first principles.