Blogging Through Martin Heidegger’s “Introduction to Metaphysics” Chapter 3 of 4
Previously:
Blog Series Commenting on Chapter 1 of Martin Heidegger’s “Introduction to Metaphysics”
Blogging Through Martin Heidegger’s “Introduction to Metaphysics” Chapter 2 of 4
The Death of the God of Leibniz: Deconstruction in a Nuthouse
DOET (Do-It) Thinking Dedication Page for the Intellectually Impatient
DOET PHILOSOPHY REVERSAL: I’m Not Trying to Prove my Philosophy with Math
Appendix: Example of DOET Circular Questioning at the Grade 5 Level
Appendix 2/2: DOET Thinking and Remembering Being
Celebrating New Teachers: Education and Metaphysics with Squaring and Circling
Now,
What are ways “is” can be used in a sentence, like “God is” (meaning “exists”) or “The boxer is strong” (meaning “has the quality of”)?
In linguistics and philosophy, the word “is” (the verb to be or the copula) is one of the most flexible and complex words in human language. It is usually thought not to possess a single, flat meaning; instead, it changes entirely based on how it functions in a sentence.
Historically, philosophers like Aristotle and Martin Heidegger noted that “is” acts as an analogical spectrum—it can express anything from deficient example to mudane baseline facts to exemplar to the deepest layers of existence. Heidegger says:
Is Being just a last wisp of evaporating reality, and is the only attitude left for us to let it evaporate completely into a matter of indifference? Or is Being what is most worthy of questioning? By questioning in this way, we complete the decisive step from an indifferent fact and the supposed emptiness of the meaning of the word “Being” to the happening that is most worthy of questioning: that Being necessarily opens itself up in our understanding. The sheer fact, apparently so unshakeable, to which metaphysics blindly appeals, has now been shaken (94-94).
Heraclitus said the best (aristoi) are able to distinguish the essential from the trivial.
The primary ways “is” can be used in a sentence are categorized below:
📑 The Core Uses of “Is”
| Category | Definition | Sentence Example | Meaning / Translation |
| 1. The Existential | Asserts absolute existence or raw being. It means “to stand forth in reality.” | “God is.” / “I think, therefore I am.” | “God exists.” / “God occupies reality.” |
| 2. The Predicative (Attributive) | Attributes a specific quality, property, or characteristic to a subject. | “The boxer is strong.” / “The apple is red.” | “The boxer possesses the quality of strength.” |
| 3. The Identity | States that two different names or terms refer to the exact same entity. | “Clark Kent is Superman.” / “A triangle is a three-sided polygon.” | “Clark Kent is identical to Superman.” (A = B) |
| 4. The Class-Inclusion | Places a singular subject inside a larger category, species, or group. | “Harley is a Havanese dog.” / “A rock is a stone.” | “Harley is a member of the group called Havanese.” |
🎨 The Analogical and Tonal Spectrum of “Is”
Beyond strict dictionary definitions, your tone and emphasis can completely alter the intensity of the word “is,” shifting how a being shows up to an observer. We see with the transitioning from deficient to mundane fact to exemplar to great truth, here “is” is not dependent on the subject or predicate but shapes them:
- The Mundane Presence (Flat Fact): “The mansion is a house.” Spoken flatly, it acts as a dull informational bridge like the house is brown or big. It treats the mansion as a generic, interchangeable piece of real estate data.
- The Exemplar (Full Presence / Enargeia): “The mansion IS a house: Now that IS a house!” By vocally blasting the emphasis on the copula, the word undergoes a phase transition. The house is no longer just a statistic; it surges forward as the absolute ideal archetype of shelter and beauty shining forth.
- The Deficient (Retracting Presence): “The dilapidated shack… is a house.” Spoken with a hesitant drop in tone, the “is” shrinks. The building barely qualifies as a house; its structural unity is fading, yet its very brokenness forces you to notice the ideal standard it is failing to live up to.
The “is” alone can convey the sense, and so we might add Life is sacrificial love (agape), the essence or one of the great truths of the human condition. “True” stands with “is” and so I can similarly say that it is true that is a house or sarcastically it is true that “is” a house or emphatically “That IS a TRUE house,” speaking of mundane fact Being, Deficient Being, Exemplary Being, and True (ownmost arche, Grundbegriffe) Being.
🤖 The Great Error: Calculation vs. Wonder
Computers and strict data logicians treat “is” purely as a digital equals sign (Subject == Predicate). But human language handles “is” as a Dynamic Open-Ended Topology—a flexible fabric where a single word can smoothly transition from a simple, correct fact all the way up to the “great truths” of the human condition.
Analogous to how Being functions, grapeness is what I have invisibly before my mind’s eye to have a successful shopping trip. Heidegger comments:
The word “Being” is a universal name, it is true, and seemingly one word among others. But this seeming is deceptive. The name and what it names are one of a kind. Therefore, we distort it fundamentally if we try to illustrate it by examples—precisely because every example in this case manifests not too much, as one might say, but always too little. Earlier we stressed that we must already know in advance what “tree” means in order to be able to seek and find what is particular, the species of trees and individual trees as such. This is all the more decisively true of Being. The necessity for us already to understand the word “Being” is the highest and is incomparable (88).
Consider the following ways we use “is:”
We say, “God is.” “The earth is.” “The lecture is in the auditorium.” “This man is from Swabia.” “The cup is of silver.” “The peasant is in the fields.” “The book is mine.” “He is dead.” “Red is the port side.” “In Russia there is famine.” “The enemy is in retreat.” “The vine disease is in the vineyards.” “The dog is in the garden.” “Over all the peaks / is peace.” <Über allen Gipfeln / ist Ruh.> In each case, the “is” is meant differently. We can easily convince ourselves of this, as long as we take this saying of the “is” as it actually happens, that is, as spoken each time from out of a particular situation, task, and mood, and not as mere sentences and stale examples in a grammar book. “God is”: i.e., actually present <gegenwärtig>. “The earth is”: i.e., we experience and believe it to be constantly present at hand <vorhanden>. “The lecture is in the auditorium”: i.e., it takes place. “The man is from Swabia”: i.e., he comes from there. “The cup is of silver”: i.e., it consists of. . . .” The peasant is in the fields”: i.e., he has moved to the fields, he is staying there. “The book is mine”: i.e., it belongs to me. “He is dead”: i.e., he has succumbed to death. “Red is the port side”: i.e., it stands for. “The dog is in the garden”: i.e., it is running around there (98)
We see that Being is analogical:
However we may interpret the individual examples, this saying of the “is” shows us one thing clearly: in the “is,” Being opens up to us in a manifold way. The assertion, at first so facile, that Being is an empty word, proves once again, and still more strikingly, to be untrue. {69} But—one could now object—the “is” is certainly meant in a manifold way. But that has nothing at all to do with the “is” itself; it simply depends on the manifold contents of the assertions, whose contents refer in each case to a different being: God, earth, cup, peasant, book, famine, peace over the peaks. It is only because the “is” in itself remains indeterminate and empty in its meaning that it can lie ready for such a manifold use, and can fill and determine itself “according to the situation.” The manifoldness of determinate meanings we have cited thus proves the opposite of what we were trying to show. It just proves as clearly as possible that Being must be indeterminate in order to be susceptible to determination. What are we to say in reply? Here we are entering the domain of a decisive question: does the “is” become manifold on the basis of the content of the sentence that is attached to it in each case, i.e. on the basis of the domain of that about which the sentences are making assertions—or does the “is,” i.e. Being, contain in itself the manifoldness whose folding makes it possible for us to make manifold beings accessible to ourselves in the first place, each as it is? (99)
We noted previously Plato identifies Being as presence, and so in the Phaedo and Gorgias we get the notion that Beauty itself is “present” in the beautiful thing.
Let us count up one by one the various meanings that we have interpreted by paraphrase. The “to be” said in the “is” signifies: “actually present,” “constantly present at hand,” “take place,” “come from,” “consist of,” “stay,” “belong,” “succumb to,” “stand for,” “come about,” “prevail,” “have entered upon,” “come forth.” It is still difficult, and perhaps even impossible, because it goes against the essence of the matter, to extract a common meaning as a universal generic concept under which these modes of the “is” could be classified as species. However, a definite, unitary trait runs through all these meanings. It points our understanding of “to be” toward a definite horizon by which the understanding is fulfilled. The boundary drawn around the sense of “Being” stays within the sphere of presentness and presence <Gegenwärtigkeit und Anwesenheit>, persistence and subsistence <Bestehen und Bestand>, staying and coming forth (100).