出典(authority):フリー百科事典『ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)』「2015/10/20 02:05:40」(JST)
この項目では、音楽制作会社について説明しています。その他の用法については「ビーイング (曖昧さ回避)」をご覧ください。 |
ビーイング鳥居坂ビル |
|
GIZA大阪本社ビル(GIZAアネックスビル)
|
|
種類 | 株式会社 |
---|---|
市場情報 | 非上場
|
本社所在地 | 日本 〒106-0032 |
本店所在地 | 〒550-0014 大阪府大阪市西区北堀江1-3-17 |
設立 | 1978年11月1日 |
業種 | 情報・通信業 |
事業内容 | 音楽コンテンツ制作、音楽ソフト製造、音楽コンテンツ配信、アーティストマネジメント、不動産投資事業、不動産会社、損害保険会社など多岐に渡る部門を有す。 |
代表者 | 升田敏則(トーマス升田) |
資本金 | 4,000万円 |
売上高 | 単体250億円(2015年3月期) |
従業員数 | 単体130名(2015年現在) |
決算期 | 3月31日 |
主要株主 | 長戸大幸とその一族 |
主要子会社 | ビーインググループ一覧参照 |
関係する人物 | 長戸大幸 |
外部リンク | http://beinggiza.com/ |
テンプレートを表示 |
株式会社ビーイング(Being, Inc.)は、1978年に東京都港区に設立された、音楽制作会社・レコード会社及びアーティストマネージメントオフィスであり、現在は音楽事業に加え、不動産投資事業も主体となっている。創業者は長戸大幸。ビーインググループと呼ばれ、GIZA studio、VERMILLION RECORDS、ビー企画室、MRM、ZAIN ARTISTSなど関連企業約60社以上を傘下にもつ企業集団であるが、現在は当社を中心とした関連企業に再編されている。
1978年、長戸大幸が月光恵亮、織田哲郎、亜蘭知子らと設立した音楽制作会社、現在はレコード・レーベルやマネジメントから販売も行う大手音楽プロダクションに成長。 TUBE、B'z、ZARD、倉木麻衣、GARNET CROW、小松未歩、大黒摩季、WANDS、DEENなど、最近ではBREAKERZ、新山詩織などの音楽制作をしていることで有名。1990年代初期から中期にかけてオリコンチャート上位を所属アーティストが独占し、業界の7%もの売上を独占するなど一世を風靡した音楽プロダクションの1つ[1]。当初は小さなマンションの中にある音楽事務所であったが[2]、関連小企業約60社を持つ企業に成長した。1993年においては、不況のさなかビーイング系アーティスト(TUBE、B'z、ZARD、WANDS、大黒摩季、DEEN、T-BOLANなど)は450億円前後を売上げ、業界の7%を占めた[3](俗にビーイングブームと呼ばれる)。ただし、こうした中でも大半のアーティストのテレビへの出演を断っていたという[4]。なお、倉木麻衣が所属するマネジメント会社LOOPが途中より、モデル・タレント部門を設立、モデル・タレント・俳優の育成、マネジメントにも進出したが、現在はその大半の業務をWhite Dreamに移管している。外部プロダクションのスターダストプロモーション、スペースクラフト、ボックスコーポレーション等と親交があり、所属アーティストのサウンドプロデュースを手がけていたが、現在は関係が薄れている。
1999年頃からは音楽事業からの資金を元手に不動産投資事業に参入、「ビープラネッツ」をはじめとした不動産子会社が大阪府大阪市西区北堀江周辺に30棟以上のビル・マンションを取得・保有し、hills パン工場の「THURSDAY LIVE」などによって北堀江を若者の街に変化させた[1]。その後不動産事業を拡大させ、関西地区で「オーク四ツ橋ビル」、「HORIE hills」(旧GIZA hills)、「ANNEX GIZA」、「ビーイング四ツ橋ビル」などビル・マンションを2014年までに約300棟以上を取得[5]、2008年には大阪市福島区(ほたるまち)に多目的ホール堂島リバーフォーラムと高級賃貸マンションリバーレジデンス堂島を完成させた。
音楽事業、不動産事業、IT事業のほか飲食業やライブハウス、音楽養成スクール、損害保険会社、デザイン会社、番組・映像制作会社、ローン会社、法務などの経営もしている。
グループ代表の長戸大幸が全面プロデュースを行っていた80年代~90年代のビーイングは、既存のアイディアを奇抜に組み替えて全く別のものを作るという意識であった。特に顕著だったのは、アマチュアバンドと契約してプロデビューさせるのではなく、オーディションで発掘したボーカリストを主体に、完全にプロデューサー主導で結成されたバンドがほとんどな点である。B'zも含めて、顔を合わせるまでお互いの素性も経歴、音楽志向も知らなかったケースもよくあった。また、ビーイングはクリエイター集団という特徴を最大限生かし、バンドやアーティスト自身の自作にはあまりこだわらずに、グループ所属の人気ミュージシャンやクリエイターの作品をほぼ独占的に採用して分業していた点にある。
現在は、一部を除きそのような傾向は薄れており、B'zがK-POPのキム・ヒョンジュンに楽曲を提供したり、ビーイング所属クリエイター陣の小澤正澄(元PAMELAH)がSKE48「アイシテラブル!」、後藤康二(元ZYYG)が乃木坂46「ガールズルール」のシングル曲をそれぞれ作曲・編曲してオリコン週間シングルチャートで1位を記録するなど、K-POPやアイドル作品を含めて外部に幅広く作品を提供している。
レコード会社としてテレビアニメ作品の主題歌をタイアップとして提供し、その主題歌のシングルCDの売上貢献に寄与させる戦略を得意としている。これは長期的に(最低2クールは)主題歌として流れるため、視聴者(主に若年者)層へ楽曲を浸透させることが出来、アーティストのファン層の拡大と関連商品に対する出費を惜しまないアニメファンによる購買が期待できることを狙いとしている。楽曲によってはタイアップするアニメのシナリオや世界観などを参考にしながら歌い手が作詞している。 1990年代には、『ちびまる子ちゃん(第1期)』での「おどるポンポコリン」が1990年の代表曲となる程のメガヒットを記録したのを皮切りに、1993年から放映が始まった『スラムダンク』で番組開始から1996年の終了まで一貫してビーイング系アーティストがOPとEDを担当、楽曲が作品内容にマッチしていた事もあり高い支持を得た。また、1996年~1997年に放映されていた『ドラゴンボールGT』や、1996年から放映が始まった『名探偵コナン』においてもビーイング系アーティストがほぼ独占的にOPとEDを担当してミリオンセラーが出ている。
『名探偵コナン』以降、小学館に連載される少年漫画を原作にアニメ化した作品との繋がりが強くなり、『メタルファイト ベイブレード』『格闘美神 武龍』『PROJECT ARMS』『モンキーターン』『メルヘヴン』『結界師』『ゴルゴ13』などに放送開始時からOP・ED・劇伴楽曲を提供している(これら作品の版権管理は小学館集英社プロダクションが行っている)。これらの他にも多くのアニメ主題歌やサウンドトラックの制作を担当している。
またゲーム関連では、『テイルズ オブ シリーズ』(ロールプレイングゲーム)のテーマ曲を提供していた時期もある(現在は主にエイベックス・グループ)。
アニメ以外でもビーイング系アーティストのリリースする曲の大半はCMや音楽番組・バラエティ番組・深夜番組・NHKオリンピック歴代テーマソング(2曲のみ)などとタイアップが付き、メディア出演をせずとも多くの人がテレビやラジオを通じて耳にするようになっている。テレビドラマ主題歌へのタイアップは2000年代には少なくなっている。
今でこそプロダクション系レコード会社はめずらしくなくなっているが、ビーイングでは1991年から立て続けに専用レコード会社及びレーベルを設立している。
1995年には、流通販売も自社で行う目的でJ-DISCを設立。これにより制作から、発売・販売・宣伝全てを自前で行う仕組みが完成した。
現在、上記レコード会社および流通販売会社はGIZA studioを除きビーイングに統合されZAIN、B-Gram、VERMILLION、NORTHERNはレコード・レーベルの一つである。 その結果、現在のレコード会社としてはBeing INC.とGIZAの2社で統一され格レーベルが付帯されている。
ビーイング系アーティストの楽曲のコーラスでは、上杉昇、生沢佑一(TWINZER)、近藤房之助、坂井泉水、宇徳敬子、大黒摩季、川島だりあ、小松未歩など、ビーイング所属のアーティスト同士で互いにコーラスに参加していた。BAADの大田紳一郎(現doa)は、ZARDの曲で男声コーラスをしている。 演奏においてもDIMENSIONを中心に自社ミュージシャンを活用している。
作詞家・作曲家・アレンジャーが多数在籍している(以下、過去の在籍も含む)。(50音順) 公式サイトが開設され、Being Music Creatorsに記載されている。
1993年当時、ビーイングの拠点は六本木にあり、そのスタジオでの様子をセピア調のジャケットや歌詞カードにして、TV露出を行わないながらアーティストイメージを印象付けた。レコーディング用マイクの前、ミキサー卓での作業風景、ギターやベースの楽器を持つ、ドラムセットに座るなどの姿を採用しているケースが多い。しかし、1997年頃からこのような写真はあまり使われなくなっていく。
外部からクリエイターを招いて楽曲製作することもあり、松井五郎・秋元康・康珍化・湯川れい子・大津あきら・ジョー・リノイエ・馬飼野康二などが該当する。更にGLAYのTAKUROが松本孝弘のソロ作品で共同制作をしたことがあった。最近では葉山たけしが離脱後もZARDなどの楽曲を製作している。
上記とは逆に織田哲郎がMAGIC・相川七瀬のプロデュースをビーイング外部で手がけた事があり、更には松本孝弘が宇都宮隆・MISIA・KAT-TUN、大島こうすけがZwei、後藤康二が伊藤由奈の楽曲を手がけた。
楽曲の参加ではZARDが楠瀬誠志郎・織田哲郎が美久月千晴・Ridingが坂崎幸之助 (THE ALFEE) とのレコーディングでのコラボレートを実現した。DIMENSIONは結成以前から誰彼構わず主義であり、ジャニーズ事務所所属歌手のレコーディングに参加している。
また、以前より外部プロダクションと親交があり、KIX-Sは渡辺プロダクション創業者渡辺晋の長女渡辺ミキと長戸が共同でプロデュースした。 スターダストプロモーションとは坂井泉水・宇徳敬子・KEY WEST CLUB・MANISHらを送り出し、その密接な関係から“ビーイング―スターダスト連合”なる呼称が一部で使われていた。
スペースクラフト、ボックスコーポレーション等と親交があり、所属アーティストのサウンドプロデュースをビーイングが手がけていた。スペースクラフトとはBon-Bon Blanco・岩田さゆり・宇浦冴香、ボックスとは上木彩矢・高岡亜衣、過去にはFIELD OF VIEW・Litz Co.などが挙げられる。しかし、現在は、それらのアーティストが全て活動休止や移籍となり、スペースクラフト、ボックスコーポレーション等との親交も薄れつつある。
吉本興業とも交流があり、古くは吉本新喜劇オールスターズ、2003年頃からFayrayのアルバム「白い花」と「HOURGLASS」[13]のサウンドプロデュースを長戸大幸が手掛けた。
1985年に設立され、大阪府に本社、東京都に支社を置くアーティスト・モデル・タレントマネージメントプロダクション「BLUE SPLASH」や1983年に設立され、大阪府を拠点に活動しているモデル・タレントマネージメントプロダクション「スタジアムプロモーション」等と業務提携。所属アーティストのサウンドプロデュースをビーイングが手掛けている。「BLUE SPLASH」所属アーティストは、北原愛子、碧井椿、北空未羽(活動休止中)、「株式会社スタジアムプロモーション」所属アーティストは、菅崎茜(活動休止中)、石上紗耶香(デビュー前)等。
元々、外部の事務所に所属するもビーイング系列のレコーディングには頻繁に参加する青木智仁・青山純・江口信夫・渡辺直樹とも親交が深い。
BADオーディションとはBeing Artist Development Auditionこれまで稲葉浩志、T-BOLAN、大黒摩季、柴崎浩、高山征輝、大田紳一郎、宇津本直紀、葛原豊、高森健太、HOOPなど数多くのミュージシャンを輩出している。 2011年にBADオーディション2011を開催。
SUPER STARLIGHT CONTESTは、全国34局ネットの音楽情報テレビ番組「CD NEWS」(現在はMU-GEN)とGIZA studio共同協賛のビーイングオーディション。これまで多くのアーティストを輩出している。「大阪GRAND Cafe」で、半年から1年周期(春と秋)に開催されており、グランプリ、準グランプリ、審査員特別賞、MU-GEN賞(以前はCD NEWS賞)等の部門賞がある。開催時によって違うが、グランプリ1名、準グランプリ1名、審査員特別賞1名から2名、MU-GEN賞1名から3名という結果が多い。同オーディションがきっかけでデビューしたアーティストは、愛内里菜、滴草由実、竹井詩織里、碧井椿、白石桔梗等。
かつてビーイングブームと呼ばれたように、1990年代前半は音楽業界でトップを走り続けていた。しかし90年代後半から、所属アーティストの全体的な売り上げが下降気味になり、1999年以降90年代のビーイングを支えてきた織田哲郎、栗林誠一郎、大黒摩季、DEENらがビーイングから移籍や活動停止。WANDS、T-BOLAN、FIELD OF VIEWらの解散が続きブームが終焉。90年代から実質引き続き残ったのはTUBE、B'z、ZARD、の3組となった。
1998年前後から、大阪心斎橋に拠点を移し、GIZA studioがメインとなった。以前のビーイングサウンドよりR&B寄りやUKロック的な音楽を指向するようになり、他社のアーティストと明確な楽曲やアレンジ上の差異は1993年前後に比べて少なくなったが、所属アーティストのメディアコントロール手法とアニメ・ゲームタイアップで活動する手法は変わっていない。
1998年から2000年の間では、小松未歩のアルバムヒット、倉木麻衣の大ヒット、名探偵コナンタイアップ作品で愛内里菜がシングル『恋はスリル、ショック、サスペンス』のスマッシュヒットをとばすなど、一時期女性アーティストの柱が立っていた。
2002年以降はTUBE、B'z、ZARD、の3本柱に加え、倉木麻衣、愛内里菜、GARNET CROWが着実に売り上げを確保していたが、最近はCD不況やインターネットや携帯電話などで購入する音楽配信への移行の影響もあり、いずれのアーティストとも全盛期より売り上げが大幅に減下してきている。これに呼応するように2003年にZAIN RECORDSがB-Gram RECORDSに吸収合併された。
2006年から2007年にかけては、東京にNORTHERN MUSICを設立し、GIZA studioから倉木麻衣、スパークリング☆ポイント、ZAIN RECORDSから滴草由実を移籍させて再起を図った。2007年にはZARDの坂井泉水が死去した。また、従来のR&B寄りやUKロック的な音楽はもとより、ジャズやボサノヴァなどにも力を入れるようになった。
2008年は平田香織が、Perfumeのブレイクで注目を集めるようになったテクノポップを踏襲した楽曲でデビューしており、新たなジャンルを開拓し始めた。また、同年DAIGO率いるBREAKERZがデビューし、男性アーティストが少ないビーイングにおいて、TUBE、B'zに続く新たな男性バンドのファン層を取り入れた。
2009年には、音楽事業の縮小により所属アーティストの契約解除や解散が目立った。およそ7年に渡り活動を続けてきた三枝夕夏 IN dbを筆頭に、スパークリング☆ポイント、Naifuが解散し、菅崎茜、岸本早未、平田香織らが活動を休止した。獲得を希望するレコード会社があったアーティストは移籍した(上木彩矢はGIZA studioからavex traxへ移籍)。
2010年12月31日、坂井泉水逝去後のビーイングを支えた女性アーティスト3本柱[14]の一人で、第54回NHK紅白歌合戦にも出場した愛内里菜が、甲状腺の病気療養のためにアーティスト活動より引退。
2011年7月10日、北原愛子がhills パン工場でのライブを最後に芸能界引退。
2012年6月、K-POP事業に新規参入。韓国出身の男性アイドルグループBOYFRIENDをBeingレーベルから日本デビューさせ、第27回 日本ゴールドディスク大賞 ベスト3ニュー・アーティスト(アジア)を受賞した。
2013年6月9日、GARNET CROWが大阪ライブをもって解散。
2015年1月28日、女性アイドル&ダンスグループLa PomPonをデビューさせる。
2015年8月26日、アンティック-珈琲店-がこれまでのインディーズ活動を終えメジャーデビュー。
ビーイング関連会社「LOOP」が途中より設立したモデル・タレント部門には、2009年2月28日をもって閉鎖が発表されるまで、制コレグランプリを受賞した川原真琴や退社後にミス日本を受賞した立花未樹(現宮田麻里乃)、2005年4月から2007年3月までのおはスタのおはガールキャンディミントのメンバーに選ばれ、倉木麻衣の「P.S MY SUNSHINE」のPVに出演した麻亜里等が所属していた。 その後、タレント部はWhite Dreamへ移行。現在所属しているタレントは、麻亜里、本田恭子、栗咲寛子、中村祐美子、内田衣津子、宮本紗恵、合田理佐子等。
発売元:販売元:株式会社ビーイング
2011年10月よりビーイングがNORTHERN MUSICを吸収
販売元:株式会社ビーイング
系列の芸能事務所でアーティストおよびタレント、モデルのマネジメントを行っている。 ただし、ビーイングが音楽制作に携わったからといって必ずしもマネジメント全般まで関与しているとは限らない。
1996年4月に倉木麻衣専用マネージメント会社として「LOOP」を設立。 しかし、途中より、モデル・タレント部門を設立し、モデル・タレント・俳優の育成やマネージメントにも力を入れる等、音楽一筋だったこれまでのビーイングを典型的に覆し、違った一面を見せるきっかけとなった。しかし、2009年2月28日をもってタレント部門の閉鎖が発表された。その後、タレント部は、White Dreamへ移行した。過去に、所属していたモデル・タレントは、川原真琴、立花未樹、麻亜里。現在、White Dreamに所属しているタレントは、麻亜里、本田恭子、栗咲寛子、中村祐美子、内田衣津子、宮本紗恵、合田理佐子等。
直接、ビーイング所属ではないが、ビーイングに所属している人物がプロデュースしたことのあるアーティスト、ビーイングの作品やライブに関わった事のある人物など。ただし、該当人物がビーイングに所属する前やビーイングから移籍・解散した後などビーイングと無関係な期間は除く。
この節の加筆が望まれています。 |
|
|
Part of a series on |
Philosophy |
---|
Plato – Kant – Nietzsche
|
Philosophers |
|
Traditions |
|
Periods |
|
Literature |
|
Branches |
|
Lists |
|
Philosophy portal |
|
Being is an extremely broad concept encompassing objective and subjective features of reality and existence. Anything that partakes in being is also called a "being", though often this use is limited to entities that have subjectivity (as in the expression "human being"). So broad a notion has inevitably been elusive and controversial in the history of philosophy, beginning in western philosophy with attempts among the pre-Socratics to deploy it intelligibly.
As an example of efforts in recent times, Martin Heidegger (who himself drew on ancient Greek sources) adopted German terms like Dasein to articulate the topic.[1] Several modern approaches build on such continental European exemplars as Heidegger, and apply metaphysical results to the understanding of human psychology and the human condition generally (notably in the Existentialist tradition).
By contrast, in mainstream Analytical philosophy the topic is more confined to abstract investigation, in the work of such influential theorists as W. V. O. Quine, to name one of many. One most fundamental question that continues to exercise philosophers is put by William James: "How comes the world to be here at all instead of the nonentity which might be imagined in its place? ... from nothing to being there is no logical bridge."[2]
The deficit of such a bridge was first encountered in history by the Pre-Socratic philosophers during the process of evolving a classification of all beings (noun). Aristotle, who wrote after the Pre-Socratics, applies the term category (perhaps not originally) to ten highest-level classes. They comprise one category of substance (ousiae) existing independently (man, tree) and nine categories of accidents, which can only exist in something else (time, place). In Aristotle, substances are to be clarified by stating their definition: a note expressing a larger class (the genus) followed by further notes expressing specific differences (differentiae) within the class. The substance so defined was a species. For example, the species, man, may be defined as an animal (genus) that is rational (difference). As the difference is potential within the genus; that is, an animal may or may not be rational, the difference is not identical to, and may be distinct from, the genus.
Applied to being, the system fails to arrive at a definition for the simple reason that no difference can be found. The species, the genus, and the difference are all equally being: a being is a being that is being. The genus cannot be nothing because nothing is not a class of everything. The trivial solution that being is being added to nothing is only a tautology: being is being. There is no simpler intermediary between being and non-being that explains and classifies being.
Pre-Socratic reaction to this deficit was varied. As substance theorists they accepted a priori the hypothesis that appearances are deceiving, that reality is to be reached through reasoning. Parmenides reasoned that if everything is identical to being and being is a category of the same thing then there can be neither differences between things nor any change. To be different, or to change, would amount to becoming or being non-being; that is, not existing. Therefore, being is a homogeneous and non-differentiated sphere and the appearance of beings is illusory. Heraclitus, on the other hand, foreshadowed modern thought by denying existence. Reality does not exist, it flows, and beings are an illusion upon the flow.
Aristotle knew of this tradition when he began his Metaphysics, and had already drawn his own conclusion, which he presented under the guise of asking what being is:[3]
"And indeed the question which was raised of old is raised now and always, and is always the subject of doubt, viz., what being is, is just the question, what is substance? For it is this that some assert to be one, others more than one, and that some assert to be limited in number, others unlimited. And so we also must consider chiefly and primarily and almost exclusively what that is which is in this sense."
and reiterates in no uncertain terms:[4] "Nothing, then, which is not a species of a genus will have an essence – only species will have it ....". Being, however, for Aristotle, is not a genus.
One might expect a solution to follow from such certain language but none does. Instead Aristotle launches into a rephrasing of the problem, the Theory of Act and Potency. In the definition of man as a two-legged animal Aristotle presumes that "two-legged" and "animal" are parts of other beings, but as far as man is concerned, are only potentially man. At the point where they are united into a single being, man, the being, becomes actual, or real. Unity is the basis of actuality:[5] "... 'being' is being combined and one, and 'not being' is being not combined but more than one." Actuality has taken the place of existence, but Aristotle is no longer seeking to know what the actual is; he accepts it without question as something generated from the potential. He has found a "half-being" or a "pre-being", the potency, which is fully being as part of some other substance. Substances, in Aristotle, unite what they actually are now with everything they might become.
Some of Thomas Aquinas' propositions were reputedly condemned by the local Bishop of Paris (not the Papal Magisterium itself) in 1270 and 1277[6][citation needed], but his dedication to the use of philosophy to elucidate theology was so thorough that he was proclaimed a Doctor of the Church in 1568. Those who adopt it are called Thomists.
In a single sentence, parallel to Aristotle's statement asserting that being is substance, St. Thomas pushes away from the Aristotelian doctrine:[7] "Being is not a genus, since it is not predicated univocally but only analogically." His term for analogy is Latin analogia. In the categorical classification of all beings, all substances are partly the same: man and chimpanzee are both animals and the animal part in man is "the same" as the animal part in chimpanzee. Most fundamentally all substances are matter, a theme taken up by science, which postulated one or more matters, such as earth, air, fire or water (Empedocles). In today's chemistry the carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen in a chimpanzee are identical to the same elements in a man.
The original text reads, "Although equivocal predications must be reduced to univocal, still in actions, the non-univocal agent must precede the univocal agent. For the non-univocal agent is the universal cause of the whole species, as for instance the sun is the cause of the generation of all men; whereas the univocal agent is not the universal efficient cause of the whole species (otherwise it would be the cause of itself, since it is contained in the species), but is a particular cause of this individual which it places under the species by way of participation. Therefore the universal cause of the whole species is not an univocal agent; and the universal cause comes before the particular cause. But this universal agent, whilst it is not univocal, nevertheless is not altogether equivocal, otherwise it could not produce its own likeness, but rather it is to be called an analogical agent, as all univocal predications are reduced to one first non-univocal analogical predication, which is being."[8]
If substance is the highest category and there is no substance, being, then the unity perceived in all beings by virtue of their existing must be viewed in another way. St. Thomas chose the analogy: all beings are like, or analogous to, each other in existing. This comparison is the basis of his Analogy of Being. The analogy is said of being in many different ways, but the key to it is the real distinction between existence and essence. Existence is the principle that gives reality to an essence not the same in any way as the existence: "If things having essences are real, and it is not of their essence to be, then the reality of these things must be found in some principle other than (really distinct from) their essence."[9] Substance can be real or not. What makes an individual substance – a man, a tree, a planet – real is a distinct act, a "to be", which actuates its unity. An analogy of proportion is therefore possible:[9] "essence is related to existence as potency is related to act."
Existences are not things; they do not themselves exist, they lend themselves to essences, which do not intrinsically have them. They have no nature; an existence receives its nature from the essence it actuates. Existence is not being; it gives being – here a customary phrase is used, existence is a principle (a source) of being, not a previous source, but one which is continually in effect. The stage is set for the concept of God as the cause of all existence, who, as the Almighty, holds everything actual without reason or explanation as an act purely of will.
Aristotle's classificatory scheme had included the five predicables, or characteristics that might be predicated of a substance. One of these was the property, an essential universal true of the species, but not in the definition (in modern terms, some examples would be grammatical language, a property of man, or a spectral pattern characteristic of an element, both of which are defined in other ways). Pointing out that predicables are predicated univocally of substances; that is, they refer to "the same thing" found in each instance, St. Thomas argued that whatever can be said about being is not univocal, because all beings are unique, each actuated by a unique existence. It is the analogous possession of an existence that allows them to be identified as being; therefore, being is an analogous predication.
Whatever can be predicated of all things is universal-like but not universal, category-like but not a category. St. Thomas called them (perhaps not originally) the transcendentia, "transcendentals", because they "climb above" the categories, just as being climbs above substance. Later academics also referred to them as "the properties of being."[10] The number is generally three or four.
The nature of "being" has also been debated and explored in Islamic philosophy, notably by Ibn Sina (=Avicenna), Suhrawardi, and Mulla Sadra.[11]
A modern linguistic approach which notices that Persian language has exceptionally developed two kinds of "is"es, i.e. ast ("is", as a copula) and hast (as an existential "is") examines the linguistic properties of the two lexemes in the first place, then evaluates how the statements made by other languages with regard to being can stand the test of Persian frame of reference.
It is noticed that the original language of the source, e.g. Greek, German and English, has only one word for two concepts, ast and hast, or, like Arabic, has no word at all for either word. It therefore exploits the Persian hast (existential is) versus ast (predicative is or copula) to address both Western and Islamic ontological arguments on being and existence.[12]
(See also The Philosophical Outcomes of Persian treatment of Indo-European copula) This linguistic method shows the scope of confusion created by languages which cannot differentiate between existential be and copula. It manifests, for instance, that the main theme of Heidegger's Being and Time is astī (is-ness) rather than hastī (existence). When, in the beginning of his book, Heidegger claims that people always talk about existence in their everyday language, without knowing what it means, the example he resorts to is: "the sky is blue" which in Persian can be ONLY translated with the use of the copula ast, and says nothing about being or existence.
In the same manner, the linguistic method addresses the ontological works written in Arabic. Since Arabic, like Latin in Europe, had become the official language of philosophical and scientific works in the so-called Islamic World, the early Persian or Arab philosophers had difficulty discussing being or existence, since the Arabic language, like other Semitic languages, had no verb for either predicative "be" (copula) or existential "be". So if you try to translate the aforementioned Heidegger's example into Arabic it appears as السماء زرقاء (viz. "The Sky-- blue") with no linking "is" to be a sign of existential statement. To overcome the problem, when translating the ancient Greek philosophy, certain words were coined like ایس aysa (from Arabic لیس laysa 'not') for 'is'. Eventually the Arabic verb وجد wajada (to find) prevailed, since it was thought that whatever is existent, is to be "found" in the world. Hence existence or Being was called وجود wujud (Cf. Swedish finns [found]> there exist; also the Medieval Latin coinage of exsistere 'standing out (there in the world)' > appear> exist).
Now, with regard to the fact that Persian, as the mother tongue of both Avicenna and Sadrā, was in conflict with either Greek or Arabic in this regard, these philosophers should have been warned implicitly by their mother tongue not to confuse two kinds of linguistic beings (viz. copula vs. existential). In fact when analyzed thoroughly, copula, or Persian ast ('is') indicates an ever-moving chain of relations with no fixed entity to hold onto (every entity, say A, will be dissolved into "A is B" and so on, as soon as one tries to define it). Therefore, the whole reality or what we see as existence ("found" in our world) resembles an ever changing world of astī (is-ness) flowing in time and space. On the other hand, while Persian ast can be considered as the 3rd person singular of the verb 'to be', there is no verb but an arbitrary one supporting hast ('is' as an existential be= exists) has neither future nor past tense and nor a negative form of its own: hast is just a single untouchable lexeme. It needs no other linguistic element to be complete (Hast. is a complete sentence meaning "s/he it exists"). In fact, any manipulation of the arbitrary verb, e.g. its conjugation, turns hast back into a copula. (For detailed discussion, see General Features and Persian sections of IE Copula)
Eventually from such linguistic analyses, it appears that while astī (is-ness) would resemble the world of Heraclitus, hastī (existence) would rather approaches a metaphysical concept resembling the Parmenidas's interpretation of existence.
In this regard, Avicenna, who was a firm follower of Aristotle, could not accept either Heraclitian is-ness (where only constant was change), nor Parmenidean monist immoveable existence (the hastī itself being constant). To solve the contradiction, it so appeared to Philosophers of Islamic world that Aristotle considered the core of existence (i.e. its substance/ essence) as a fixed constant, while its facade (accident) was prone to change. To translate such a philosophical image into Persian it is like having hastī (existence) as a unique constant core covered by astī (is-ness) as a cloud of ever-changing relationships. It is clear that the Persian language, deconstructs such a composite as a sheer mirage, since it is not clear how to link the interior core (existence) with the exterior shell (is-ness). Furthermore, hast cannot be linked to anything but itself (as it is self-referent).
The argument has a theological echos as well: assuming that God is the Existence, beyond time and space, a question is raised by philosophers of the Islamic world as how He, as a transcendental existence, may ever create or contact a world of is-ness in space-time.
However, Avicenna who was more philosopher than theologian, followed the same line of argumentation as that of his ancient master, Aristotle, and tried to reconcile between ast and hast, by considering the latter as higher order of existence than the former. It is like a hierarchical order of existence. It was a philosophical Tower of Babel that the restriction of his own mother tongue (Persian) would not allow to be built, but he could maneuver in Arabic by giving the two concepts the same name wujud, although with different attributes. So, implicitly, astī (is-ness) appears as ممکن الوجود "momken-al-wujud" (contingent being), and hastī (existence) as واجب الوجود "wājeb-al-wujud" (necessary being).
On the other hand, centuries later, Sadrā, chose a more radical rout, by inclining towards the reality of astī (is-ness), as the true mode of existence, and tried to get rid of the concept of hastī (existence as fixed or immovable). Thus, in his philosophy, the universal movement penetrates deep into the Aristotelian substance / essence, in unison with changing accident. He called this deep existential change حرکت جوهری harekat-e jowhari (Substantial Movement). It is obvious that in such a changing existence, the whole world has to go through instantaneous annihilation and recreation incessantly, while as Avicenna had predicted in his remarks on Nature, such a universal change or substantial movement would eventually entail the shortening and lengthening of time as well which has never been observed. This logical objection, which was made on Aristotle's argumentation, could not be answered in the ancient times or medieval age, but now it does not sound contradictory to the real nature of Time (as addressed in relativity theory), so by a reverse argument, a philosopher may indeed deduce that everything is changing (moving) even in the deepest core of Being.
Although innovated in the late medieval period, Thomism was dogmatized in the Renaissance. From roughly 1277 to 1567, it dominated the philosophic landscape. The rationalist philosophers, however, with a new emphasis on Reason as a tool of the intellect, brought the classical and medieval traditions under new scrutiny, exercising a new concept of doubt, with varying outcomes. Foremost among the new doubters were the empiricists, the advocates of scientific method, with its emphasis on experimentation and reliance on evidence gathered from sensory experience. In parallel with the revolutions against rising political absolutism based on established religion and the replacement of faith by reasonable faith, new systems of metaphysics were promulgated in the lecture halls by charismatic professors, such as Immanuel Kant, and Hegel. The late 19th and 20th centuries featured an emotional return to the concept of existence under the name of existentialism. These philosophers were concerned mainly with ethics and religion. The metaphysical side became the domain of the phenomenalists. In parallel with these philosophies Thomism continued under the protection of the Catholic Church; in particular, the Jesuit order.
Rationalism and empiricism have had many definitions, most concerned with specific schools of philosophy or groups of philosophers in particular countries, such as Germany. In general rationalism is the predominant school of thought in the multi-national, cross-cultural Age of reason, which began in the century straddling 1600 as a conventional date,[13] empiricism is the reliance on sensory data[14] gathered in experimentation by scientists of any country, who, in the Age of Reason were rationalists. An early professed empiricist, Thomas Hobbes, known as an eccentric denizen of the court of Charles II of England (an "old bear"), published in 1651 Leviathan, a political treatise written during the English civil war, containing an early manifesto in English of rationalism.
Hobbes said:[15]
"The Latines called Accounts of mony Rationes ... and thence it seems to proceed that they extended the word Ratio, to the faculty of Reckoning in all other things....When a man reasoneth hee does nothing else but conceive a summe totall ... For Reason ... is nothing but Reckoning ... of the consequences of generall names agreed upon, for the marking and signifying of our thoughts ...."
In Hobbes reasoning is the right process of drawing conclusions from definitions (the "names agreed upon"). He goes on to define error as self-contradiction of definition ("an absurdity, or senselesse Speech"[16]) or conclusions that do not follow the definitions on which they are supposed to be based. Science, on the other hand, is the outcome of "right reasoning," which is based on "natural sense and imagination", a kind of sensitivity to nature, as "nature it selfe cannot erre."
Having chosen his ground carefully Hobbes launches an epistemological attack on metaphysics. The academic philosophers had arrived at the Theory of Matter and Form from consideration of certain natural paradoxes subsumed under the general heading of the Unity Problem. For example, a body appears to be one thing and yet it is distributed into many parts. Which is it, one or many? Aristotle had arrived at the real distinction between matter and form, metaphysical components whose interpenetration produces the paradox. The whole unity comes from the substantial form and the distribution into parts from the matter. Inhering in the parts giving them really distinct unities are the accidental forms. The unity of the whole being is actuated by another really distinct principle, the existence.
If nature cannot err, then there are no paradoxes in it; to Hobbes, the paradox is a form of the absurd, which is inconsistency:[17] "Natural sense and imagination, are not subject to absurdity" and "For error is but a deception ... But when we make a generall assertion, unlesse it be a true one, the possibility of it is inconceivable. And words whereby we conceive nothing but the sound, are those we call Absurd ...." Among Hobbes examples are "round quadrangle", "immaterial substance", "free subject."[16] Of the scholastics he says:[18]
"Yet they will have us beleeve, that by the Almighty power of God, one body may be at one and the same time in many places [the problem of the universals]; and many bodies at one and the same time in one place [the whole and the parts]; ... And these are but a small part of the Incongruencies they are forced to, from their disputing philosophically, in stead of admiring, and adoring of the Divine and Incomprehensible Nature ...."
The real distinction between essence and existence, and that between form and matter, which served for so long as the basis of metaphysics, Hobbes identifies as "the Error of Separated Essences."[19] The words "Is, or Bee, or Are, and the like" add no meaning to an argument nor do derived words such as "Entity, Essence, Essentially, Essentiality", which "are the names of nothing"[20] but are mere "Signes" connecting "one name or attribute to another: as when we say, A man, is, a living body, wee mean not that the Man is one thing, the Living Body another, and the Is, or Being another: but that the Man, and the Living Body, is the same thing;...." "Metaphysiques," Hobbes says, is "far from the possibility of being understood" and is "repugnant to naturall Reason."[21]
Being to Hobbes (and the other empiricists) is the physical universe:[22]
The world, (I mean ... the Universe, that is, the whole masse of all things that are) is corporeall, that is to say, Body; and hath the dimension of magnitude, namely, Length, Bredth and Depth: also every part of Body, is likewise Body ... and consequently every part of the Universe is Body, and that which is not Body, is no part of the Universe: and because the Universe is all, that which is no part of it is nothing; and consequently no where."
Hobbes' view is representative of his tradition. As Aristotle offered the categories and the act of existence, and Aquinas the analogy of being, the rationalists also had their own system, the great chain of being, an interlocking hierarchy of beings from God to dust.
In addition to the materialism of the empiricists, under the same aegis of Reason, rationalism produced systems that were diametrically opposed now called idealism, which denied the reality of matter in favor of the reality of mind. By a 20th-century classification, the idealists (Kant, Hegel and others), are considered the beginning of continental philosophy, while the empiricists are the beginning, or the immediate predecessors, of analytical philosophy.[citation needed]
Some philosophers deny that the concept of "being" has any meaning at all, since we only define an object's existence by its relation to other objects, and actions it undertakes. The term "I am" has no meaning by itself; it must have an action or relation appended to it. This in turn has led to the thought that "being" and nothingness are closely related, developed in existential philosophy.
Existentialist philosophers such as Sartre, as well as continental philosophers such as Hegel and Heidegger have also written extensively on the concept of being. Hegel distinguishes between the being of objects (being in itself) and the being of people (Geist). Hegel, however, did not think there was much hope for delineating a "meaning" of being, because being stripped of all predicates is simply nothing.
Heidegger, in his quest to re-pose the original pre-Socratic question of Being, wondered at how to meaningfully ask the question of the meaning of being, since it is both the greatest, as it includes everything that is, and the least, since no particular thing can be said of it. He distinguishes between different modes of beings: a privative mode is present-at-hand, whereas beings in a fuller sense are described as ready-to-hand. The one who asks the question of Being is described as Da-sein ("there/here-being") or being-in-the-world. Sartre, popularly understood as misreading Heidegger (an understanding supported by Heidegger's essay "Letter on Humanism" which responds to Sartre's famous address, "Existentialism is a Humanism"), employs modes of being in an attempt to ground his concept of freedom ontologically by distinguishing between being-in-itself and being-for-itself.
Being is also understood as one's "state of being," and hence its common meaning is in the context of human (personal) experience, with aspects that involve expressions and manifestations coming from an innate "being", or personal character. Heidegger coined the term "dasein" for this property of being in his influential work Being and Time ("this entity which each of us is himself…we shall denote by the term 'dasein.'"[1]), in which he argued that being or dasein links one's sense of one's body to one's perception of world. Heidegger, amongst others, referred to an innate language as the foundation of being, which gives signal to all aspects of being.
As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light of meaning in the darkness of mere being.
— Carl Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections ch. II (1962)
Under the heading ‘Individuality in Thought and Desire’, Karl Marx (German Ideology, 1845), says:
"It depends not on consciousness, but on being; not on thought, but on life; it depends on the individual's empirical development and manifestation of life, which in turn depends on the conditions existing in the world."
|
Philosophers
|
Cite error: Invalid <ref>
tag; name "dasein1" defined multiple times with different content
Look up being in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. |
|
|
全文を閲覧するには購読必要です。 To read the full text you will need to subscribe.
リンク元 | 「entity」 |
拡張検索 | 「fetal well-being」「human being」「well-being」「wellbeing」 |
.