Many people in general misunderstand the terminology the Buddha used, including Buddhists & even translators. If these people misunderstand the terminology then what is to be expected of Western philosophers?
About 'being', the Pali scriptures report the Buddha discussed this word at length. For example, in the core doctrine of Dependent Origination, the notion of 'beings' is central to the meaning of the word 'birth' ('jati').
And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, entering, coming-to-be, coming-forth of the various beings in this or that group of beings based on the appearance ('look'; 'features') of aggregates & appropriation of the sense spheres, that is called birth.
The word 'being' ('satta') refers to an internally generated 'view' of 'self' or 'persons' (see Satta Sutta & Vajira Sutta below).
Although 'beings' in these suttas is described as a mental state or mental view, most Buddhists & people regard 'beings' meta-physically, i.e., as an organism.
Similarly, most people & Buddhists regard the word 'birth' ('jati') meta-physically, rather than the meaning in the Indian languages of 'social & self identity' (see Wiki).
As for 'emptiness' ('sunnata'), it is defined as the absence of "self".
In Pali Buddhism, 'being' & 'emptiness' are opposite things however both can exist in the human experience; 'being' arising from ignorance & emptiness discerned by enlightened clear seeing.
Most crucially, the Buddha was not a philosopher but, instead, a 'Spiritual Doctor'. The Buddha had only one sole concern, namely, the ending or curing of suffering.
For the Buddha, the arising of 'being', i.e., the arising of 'ego' or 'self', is the arising of suffering. For example, a new born child has no idea of 'self' but later develops ideas of 'myself' based on cravings for things (such as food, comfort, love, pleasures, etc). These cravings are sufferings thus the manifestation of 'being' is always from the manifestation of suffering (refer to Vajira Sutta below).
'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"
Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, feeling, perceptions, mental fabrications &/or consciousness, Radha: when one
is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'
Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.'
It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls away. Nothing but suffering comes to be [when 'being' comes to be],
Nothing but suffering ceases [when 'being' ceases].
And what is the emptiness mind-release? There is the case where a monk, having gone into the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or into
an empty dwelling, considers this: 'This is empty of self or of
anything pertaining to self.' This is called the emptiness
Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty.
And what is empty of
a self or of anything pertaining to a self? The eye is empty of a self
or of anything pertaining to a self. Forms... Eye-consciousness...
Eye-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self.
The ear is empty...
The nose is empty...
The tongue is empty...
The body is empty...
The intellect is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Ideas... Intellect-consciousness... Intellect-contact is empty
of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Thus it is said that
the world is empty."