Nothingness

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 01:26 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;166910 wrote:
That which contains everything, and holds everything together, in the holding process, must hold itself !


I agree with what you are saying here. There are different ways to work with it, but it's a significant point.

---------- Post added 05-27-2010 at 02:28 PM ----------

Ding_an_Sich;169641 wrote:
Nothingness cannot be understood if you mean it to be devoid of space and time, as they are a priori intuitions; it would make no sense for us. That there is no thing there we can very well understand if we remove all the sensations and intelligible qualities from a representation; but we are still left with time and space, that is, with the representation gone we are still left with pure space and time. Thats my take on it (along with Kant and Schopenhauer).


Excellent point. We can imagine empty space. We might be able to ignore time, and imagine a static nothingness. But it seems difficult if not impossible to ignore the intuition of space. Hegel wrote that indeterminate or completely abstract being was the same concept, really, as nothingness. I think he has a point. Once we have the concept of nothingness in mind, we don't have nothing in mind, but this minimal sense of being. This minimal unity devoid of all properties but this unity in empty space.
 
Ding an Sich
 
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 01:34 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;169642 wrote:
I agree with what you are saying here. There are different ways to work with it, but it's a significant point.

---------- Post added 05-27-2010 at 02:28 PM ----------



Excellent point. We can imagine empty space. We might be able to ignore time, and imagine a static nothingness. But it seems difficult if not impossible to ignore the intuition of space. Hegel wrote that indeterminate or completely abstract being was the same concept, really, as nothingness. I think he has a point. Once we have the concept of nothingness in mind, we don't have nothing in mind, but this minimal sense of being. This minimal unity devoid of all properties but this unity in empty space.


But even then we still cant get our minds around nothingness; we can only get our minds around the barest intuitions, space (outer sense) being the lowest of the low.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 01:35 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Ding_an_Sich;169650 wrote:
But even then we still cant get our minds around nothingness; we can only get our minds around the barest intuitions, space (outer sense) being the lowest of the low.



Right, I agree with you completely. We can't really think nothingness any more than we can really think infinity, or of a round square. But we make use of the these words in our games, right? I think it's great that we are investigating such concepts. Smile

By the way, do you agree that we also automatically see this nothingness as unified, as a singular entity? Of course our grammar already suggests that. But I want to see if anyone sees why I assert this.
 
Ding an Sich
 
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 01:38 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;169651 wrote:
Right, I agree with you completely. We can't really think nothingness any more than we can really think infinity, or of a round square. But we make use of the these words in our games, right? I think it's great that we are investigating such concepts. Smile

By the way, do you agree that we also automatically see this nothingness as unified, as a singular entity? Of course our grammar already suggests that. But I want to see if anyone sees why I assert this.


Wouldnt that just be zero?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 01:53 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Ding_an_Sich;169653 wrote:
Wouldnt that just be zero?


Pretty much. That's one of the interesting things about zero. It's the presence of an absence. It's a unity, but functions in two different ways, depending on whether it's addition of multiplication one is doing. 0 and 1 are strange like that. One is the additive identity and the other is the multiplicative identity.
 
Soul Brother
 
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 09:38 pm
@andyhudd,
andyhudd;26075 wrote:
On the topic of nothingness, a concept so great, that it seems almost impossible for us to ever really understand, I've come up with a theory/quote, that I thought I'd share.

"To truly understand nothingness, is to understand everything."

What do you think?


Even if we could come to understand everything that is, would we be able to comprehend nothingness?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 11:03 pm
@Soul Brother,
Soul Brother;170653 wrote:
Even if we could come to understand everything that is, would we be able to comprehend nothingness?


But you talk as it nothingness were a thing to be comprehended, but that it could not be comprehended. But is the word, "nothing" the name of anything, comprehensible or not? If I say that there is nothing in that drawer, am I really saying that there is something in the drawer, and its name is, "nothing"? If, in the words of the song from the musical, South Pacific, "there is nothing like a dame", does that mean that there is something, and that that something is like a dame?

"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by language". Wittgenstein.
 
Soul Brother
 
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 01:59 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;170688 wrote:
But you talk as it nothingness were a thing to be comprehended, but that it could not be comprehended. But is the word, "nothing" the name of anything, comprehensible or not? If I say that there is nothing in that drawer, am I really saying that there is something in the drawer, and its name is, "nothing"? If, in the words of the song from the musical, South Pacific, "there is nothing like a dame", does that mean that there is something, and that that something is like a dame?

"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by language". Wittgenstein.


No, I speak as if nothingness were nothing, therefore there is nothing to comprehend. may I remind you the notion was put forth that nothingness were something to be understood which is why I questioned such a notion, why did you think I made a quote to it? yet another case of ken inventing errors purely as to be the one to rectify them. I know you try very hard ken to find mistakes in every proposition, but as you can see, you sometimes try too hard and when the error is not there you fabricate it.
Lets just hope next time you will think twice before making such a fool of your self ha ken?
 
 

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 07/23/2019 at 05:39:04