this guy starts by pulling together stuff I said to make a defintion of my terms:
Definitions:Now he's going to demonstrate the he doesn' know what time is, he doesn't know what it means to be an individual and he's not sure of his own existence:
Ground of being: (aka "being itself") The basic aspect of being that is not contingent are particular to any temporal or temporary or contingent aspect of beings or a being, but is eternal, ontologically necessary, and upon which the individual beings are predicted.
I think there are two assumptions in this definition:
1 Time is a word that has meaning, or is an idea of something that is real. Science tells us that our idea of time is relative, so what are you basing your ideas of this word on? How do you define time?
He thinks time being relative means that it's unreal. Now he's going to show that hey know if he exists or if he is an individual:
2. That there are more than one individual beings that exist, if there are any at all. What do you mean when you say individual beings are predicted? How do you know that there isn't only one thing that exists?.Of course we don't know for sure, we could argue that it's all one thing, that might be a coherent idea but he seems to be unaware of the notion that it's not the case, which should be the intuitive response of anyone on earth.
Ontology and metaphysics is a complex and much contested subject of Philosophy. The only thing we are pretty sure exists is the stuff our universe is made of. The stuff that reason and science explains. What else is there and how do we know it is real?
The stuff reason and scinece explains? But reason and science doesn't' say it's all one thing, if they did "being" would be certainly in the running for what that one thing is. He seems unaware that people are capable or allowed to think for themselves about philosophical ideas.
Western civilization has crashed!