On Being: Logic, Metaphysics, and the Experience of Existence (Long version)

We’re revisiting one of the biggest questions there is: what does it mean to exist? And in doing so, we also touch on something else—whether philosophy still has a place in the modern world. Some people today say that philosophy is just playing with words or solving imaginary problems, especially when it dares to talk about the nature of being itself.

But can we really ignore the question of existence?  

What it means to be? 

If you're someone who’s thinking deeply and looking for solid ground, that question is impossible to avoid.

Let’s explore this with a simple example: imagine we separate what something is from the fact that it exists. Take a cup—you could describe its shape, its material, how it feels. That’s its essence. But the fact that it's sitting in front of you? That’s its existence. Now, if existence has nothing to do with essence, then it has no clear definition. And if something can’t be defined, it’s almost like saying it’s nothing. That’s the strange part—existence seems both real and undefined.

If we say that existence is totally separate from essence, then by logic, existence has no clear definition. And if something can’t be defined, it starts to look like nothing. Strangely enough, that leads us to a paradox: being equals nothing—not because it doesn’t exist, but because it can’t be pinned down.

In older philosophical traditions, especially scholastic ones, the word transcendent didn’t just mean something beyond the physical world. It also referred to the deepest core of existence. So being itself could be seen as something transcendent—absolute, hard to describe, but present in every single thing. Like a spark that brings something into life.

This idea leans toward mystical metaphysics. Think of the viewpoint that says every being needs some kind of divine energy to keep existing. But modern science pushes back against this. It says: if something can’t be explained as an object, a process, or energy, then it’s not logically valid. According to this view, pure existence can’t be studied directly, so it’s not a real topic for science.

Still, philosophy doesn’t give up so easily. It keeps looking for new ways to talk about being. What if essence and existence aren’t separate at all? What if something exists because it’s meaningful?

Here’s an ancient Greek idea: to exist is to take shape.

For example, the idea of a round ball is something we understand before we even look at it. Our minds aren’t separate from how shapes are formed—we recognize the red ball not just by its color or shape, but as a single, unified thing. Its shape “returns to itself,” and that’s what gives it presence.

From this, we get a simple but powerful idea:

To be is to follow the logic of a form repeating itself. Something exists because its form confirms itself—it completes a loop.

There are two key ways we relate to being:

• Affirming a form — recognizing and giving shape to something is a way of saying “yes” to its existence.

• Breaking a form — challenging or undoing it is a “no,” but it still means we’re responding to it.

Both are valid ways of interacting with being—by forming or unforming something.

In the end, being is about being shaped.

Science might not be able to define being as a thing. It doesn’t have the tools to fully capture it. But that doesn’t mean the question doesn’t matter. Being still exists as something we feel, something we sense, something we think about.

We may not be able to describe being in exact terms—but we can still tell its story. We may not invent a new theory of existence—but we can step into it, live it, respond to it.

Existence isn’t just finite, it’s unpredictable—and that’s where the real challenge lies, that’s the twist.