|
I'll be a little more careful. We've established that being is not a being. I'd have thought that's because beings show up within being, so being cannot be a being in itself, but the reasoning here is different: being is not a being since all beings are. My mistake was to assume that the dichotomy of is/"is not" applies to being but I suppose it doesn't (it only does to things, to beings), and to understand the sentence in negation (that is, "beings are, rather than not", and not simply "beings are")
|