PhilArchive
open access
Two Meanings of ‘is’ Heidegger’s Horizon and the Crossing Point
This essay argues that Martin Heidegger correctly recovered the question of Being, but that temporal horizon does not suffice as ontological ground. Granting the phenomenological force of Heidegger’s analysis of finitude, thrownness, and Being-toward-death, the paper distinguishes the problem of intelligibility from the problem of sustenance. In place of a horizon-based model, it proposes a center-based account in which the Now functions as the invariant condition of actualization. The argument then relates this framework to classical metaphysical accounts in Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and the Exodus formula “I AM WHO I AM.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Time’S Disquiet and Unrest#715679
- Ecstatic Self-Determination. A Reflection on the Possibility of an Ontological Correspondence between Heidegger’s Dasein and Plotinus’ Nous#165084
- Fatalism and the Metaphysics of Contingency#733928
- Martin Heidegger and Modern Models of the Growth of Knowledge#757515
- Heideggerian Epistemology as a Source of Kuhn's Concept of the Growth of Knowledge#757507
Record · ID 718101
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive