Understanding the Structure of Being – 1

The Inescapable Belief in Becoming

One of the most immediate and profound difficulties in understanding the Structure of Being is the deeply ingrained belief that things come into existence and pass away. This belief—what Emanuele Severino calls “becoming”—is not merely a theoretical assumption but a fundamental lens through which we perceive reality. We do not merely think that things change; we experience change as an undeniable fact of life.

We see birth and death, growth and decay, beginnings and endings. Everything around us seems subject to transformation, and for centuries, our entire way of thinking—scientific, religious, and philosophical—has taken this for granted. How, then, could it be otherwise? How could we possibly conceive of a reality where nothing ever truly arises or perishes?

The Power of Habitual Thought

The difficulty in questioning becoming is not a failure of intelligence or logic. Rather, it is the result of an assumption so fundamental that it precedes our conscious reflection. The mind is trained to see reality in terms of cause and effect, of processes unfolding in time. Even when we attempt to think beyond this, we often unconsciously reintroduce it in different forms.

For example, even when presented with the claim that all being is eternal, the mind may still ask: “But how did this truth come to be known?”—thus assuming that the recognition of being itself must have “become” at some point in time. Or one may wonder, “What caused being to be eternal?”—unwittingly applying causality to what is beyond cause.

These reflexive habits make the rejection of becoming appear absurd at first glance. It seems to contradict not only our reasoning but our entire lived experience.

The Contradiction of Becoming

Yet, as Severino reveals, the belief in becoming harbors a contradiction. If something can truly come into existence, it must have once been nothing. Likewise, if something can truly cease to exist, it must become nothing. But nothingness is not something that can be; it is absolute non-being, which means it can never exist.

If non-being is impossible, then the arising and perishing of things is also impossible. What we call “change” is not the movement of things into or out of existence, but rather the appearing and disappearing of eternally existing beings. What was, always was; what is, always is; what will be, already is—though not yet apparent.

This is not a mystical assertion but a logical necessity: if anything ever truly became nothing, it would have to exist as nothing—a contradiction.

Why the Mind Resists This Truth

If the rejection of becoming is logically necessary, why does the mind resist it?

The answer lies in the structure of experience itself. We do not see all things at once; our awareness is limited, bound to the unfolding of what appears in time. This limitation makes the appearing and disappearing of things seem like true birth and death rather than what they really are: shifts in what is present to our awareness.

A useful metaphor is that of a narrow window in a room, through which an immense landscape stretches beyond. The landscape—the totality of being—remains unchanged, yet from our vantage point, different portions come into view while others fade as we move within the room. It is not the landscape that changes, but our shifting perspective.

Thus, it is not that things truly cease to be, but that our perspective on them is partial. We mistake the limits of our experience for limits in reality itself.

Overcoming the First Hurdle

Recognizing this does not immediately dissolve the difficulty, but it opens the door to deeper inquiry. The belief in becoming, so ingrained in human thought, does not vanish overnight. Yet, if we allow ourselves to consider the implications of its impossibility, a new way of seeing begins to emerge.

The next hurdle, however, arises immediately: if being is eternal, how do we make sense of time? Does it not contradict eternity? This will be the focus of the next article.