Here is a summary of the "being" vs" becoming" issue from this link: http://metaphysicist.com/problems/being/
pasted-from-clipboard.pngPresuming this is an accurate summary, then a threshold problem for an Epicurean would be this:
"Being is part of the essential nature of some abstract entities. They are ideas that exist in the immaterial realm of pure information and do not change."
This would appear to be pure Platonism and totally contrary to Epicurean physics and understanding of the nature of the universe.
The entire issue of talking about "becoming" vs "being" is bogus because there is no such thing as "being" -- ideas in an immaterial realm.
Every discussion of this, once entered by accepting the validity of "being," is a disaster, because "being" in these terms is a fantasy that does not exist.
I tend to think that this is a common method of anti-Epicurean philosophers - using terminology that appears to mean something but really refers to nothing that exists.
So my working presumption is that this "being" vs. "becoming" issue has no value in understanding the universe, but that understanding the terminology is important so that we can avoid being confused by these arguments.
Anyone have a different take on "being" vs. "becoming?"