Point of Being
This is the beginning of a new idea. For the time being it will be called “Punto Existente” in Spanish, “Point of Being” in English. Although these are not direct translations, they express the same idea. Why? Because everything from thoughts to international relations will be explained with the simplest representation: a point.
This point is an expression of existentialist philosophy. Existing is a spatio-temporal expression which of course requires being. This simple verb can explain everything about existence since something that “is not” cannot be/exist and if it “isn’t somewhere/somehow” then it can’t be located/addressed. Notice how one can be happy or be happy, which implies different ideas and intentions; one can be happy [as a person] but sometimes be/feel sad or viceversa and even the dumbest person can be aware of something others aren’t. In short: existence implies being, but being can mean different things here and now.
In philosophy, there are what are called “is of identity” and “is of predication”. The is-of-identity has examples such as “Clark Kent is Superman”, which means that they are one and the same, while the is-of-predication works for examples such as “the cat is black”. Notice the difference? Being Clark Kent always means being Superman (despite the costume), but being a cat doesn’t always entail being black (or vice versa). Another way of seeing it is noticing that Clark Kent and Superman are one person with two personalities, but when a cat “is black”, it means that two things are always found in one (i.e. the cat always “stays black”... assuming it doesn’t spill permanent paint on itself while doing mischief). Does that mean that one is two and two is one? Nah, that would be crazy!
There’s one thing missing in order to exist: doing. If someone writes, is s/he a writer or is s/he merely writing?
Perhaps it seems trivial, but think about this: do racist comments make one racist?
Yes? Agreed, but what if someone speaks against racism even though s/he is thoroughly racist? Similarly, is it better/worse to be a sexist who fights for equality or someone who claims to believe in equality without doing anything? Who is the good one and who is the bad one? Do you decide which one is ‘truly’ sexist and which one isn’t based on what they are doing?
Some would argue that “We are what we repeatedly do” but how many times do we have to do “it” to become it? Sometimes smart people act like idiots while dumb people can outsmart us ‘geniuses’. And does a writer always have to write while a thinker thinks? Maybe it’s best if a writer thinks before they write and a thinker writes after they think... but then who is who?
All of these are existential matters and that’s why existentialism matters. I’m calling this “Point of Being” to make a point that it is, whatever and wherever it is.
