Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T01:19:52.113Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Non-Being and Mu the Metaphysical Nature of Negativity in the East and the West

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

Masao Abe
Affiliation:
Professor of Religious Studies, Nora University of Education, Nara, Japan

Extract

In Volume i of his Systematic Theology, Paul Tillich says, ‘Being precedes nonbeing in ontological validity, as the word “nonbeing” itself indicates’ (p. 189). He also says elsewhere, ‘Being “embraces” itself and nonbeing’, and ‘Nonbeing is dependent on the being it negates. “Dependent”—points first of all to the ontological priority of being over nonbeing’ (The Courage to Be, p. 34, p. 40). Tillich makes these statements in connection with a tendency among some Christian thinkers to take God as Being itself. The same understanding of the relation of being and non-being can be discerned in major strands of Greek philosophy through the ideas of to on and me on. Although Greek philosophy and the Christian movement have different starting points in time, in geographical locale, in conceptual orientation, Tillich's statements demonstrate the manner in which the two strands have, to a significant degree, merged, and his comments reflect a basic under standing (if not the basic understanding) of being and nonbeing in the West.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 191 note 1 Hegel may be mentioned here as meaning something different from Nietzsche and Heidegger. As for the author's view of Hegel in contrast to the Buddhist idea of Buddha Nature or Sūnyatā see ‘Dogen on Buddha Nature’, The Eastern Buddhist, New Series, Vol. IV, No. 1, pp. 55–8.