Does nothingness exist?
"Nothing, pure nothingness; it is simple equality with itself, complete emptiness. In so far as mention can be made here of intuiting and thinking, it makes a difference whether something or nothing is being intuited or thought. To intuit or to think nothing has therefore a meaning (Science of Logic; Hegel, p. 59).
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58d6b5ff86e6c087a92f8f89/t/5913a3bb197aeab3e23ff4d3/1494459337924/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel__The_Science_of_Logic.pdf
If something exists, so does nothing exist.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58d6b5ff86e6c087a92f8f89/t/5913a3bb197aeab3e23ff4d3/1494459337924/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel__The_Science_of_Logic.pdf
If something exists, so does nothing exist.
Comments (74)
Leucippus (contra Parmenides et al) millennia before Hegel: "there is only atoms swirling in the void".
And donut holes.
EX-ist: passage , transition, difference. No-thing and something together form an Existing. There is no nothing or something by itself , as itself. Without the movement between the poles, the poles cannot be. The be-ing is in the ex-isting, which is the differentiation.
"Nothing," it turns out, is really quite something. As in the concept of nothingness. So much so, that in the 1920s, a debate about "nothing" between two philosophers led to a lasting schism in Western philosophy.
The two thinkers were Martin Heidegger and Rudolf Carnap. On the one hand, Heidegger plays with language in an attempt to talk about nothing. On the other, Carnap claims the dictates of logic reduce any talk of nothing to nonsense. And their conflicting views on nothing catalyzed what's now known as the 'continental-analytic split' in philosophy.
The clash between Heidegger's playfulness with Carnap's logic raises some big questions: just what is philosophy? Is it closer to art or science? And can anything be done to bridge the chasm opened by Heidegger and Carnap?
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/how-a-debate-over-nothing-split-western-philosophy-apart-1.6268281
That said, Being & Time (Heidegger) - nothing seems compatible with the passage of time (there was nothing for 18 trillion years). :snicker:
There is a hole in that argument but it's nothing to worry
A 'something' in Hegel, an 'Etwas', is already a more concrete form. Pure Being and pure nothing are sublated into becoming. I am not saying this to quibble but to indicate that being and nothing does not lead to an 'existent', they lead to 'flux', however a flux requires there is something concrete that is in flux. Nothing as well as being are thought determinations. As pure abstract generalities, they do not exist. Nothing therefore does not exist at least not in its 'pure' form.
The passage you quoted does not entail that 'nothing' exists, at least not as pure nothing, perhaps best translated as 'nothingness'. What exists concretely, when opposed to 'Etwas' is 'determined nothing', bestimmtes Nichts. And bestimmtes Nichts is lack of something, at least I find that the most convincing reading of the first remark: "It is customary to oppose nothing to something. Something is however already a determinate existent that distinguishes itself from another something; consequently, the nothing which is being opposed to something is also the nothing of a certain something, a determinate nothing. Here, however, the nothing is to be taken in its indeterminate simplicity" P. 60. So I think here Hegel already backpedals on his opposition of pure nothing to something on p 59. It is often done but incorrect. Determinate being 'etwas' is opposed to determinate nothing, aka, a not something, lack of something, or void. That idea is much less forceful than pure nothingness. Nothingness is pure abstract generality, emptiness and as such the same as pure being, while also its opposite.
I did not know that debate between Heidegger and Carnap, thanks for that! I do think Heideggers 'Nichts' and Hegel's 'Nichts' are very different. In Hegel it is not really a 'something', in Heidegger it has much more of a function in and of itself. Das 'Nichts nichtet' and also serves as the backdrop I believe against which Dasein realizes itself, there Nichts is a bit akin to the fear of death. That though is memory from a long time ago....
True. But an indicator, whatever else it might do, indicates. The nothing I get as a score in a game is quite different from the nothing I have in the bank. We're talking about separate indicateds (horrible word, but I'm avoiding '..things indicated' so as not to be too obviously begging the question. I may be surreptitiously begging the question, of course.)
"It's nothing! Boooop!" He says as he squints two fingers together.
Quoting Tobias
Although now I’ve learned the meaning of ‘determinate nothing’, which is something. :wink:
Quoting Tobias
So we can have determinate nothings - the zero score is understood as nothing only in relation to the positive score I might have got. At any rate, there are nothings after all - determinate ones.
However, the implied search is for indeterminate nothings - pure nothingness, perhaps.
I'm not sure we'll find pure nothingness - not because it's nothing - rather, because it's presumed indeterminate. If we try to talk about Something that is not Something-in-particular, we will have just the same problem.
Yes, but in that case, we're talking about something, which by definition is not nothing!
So I maintain the idea of 'pure nothingness' is a fallacy. 'Nothing exists' sounds like an actual proposition as it is grammatically sound, but it's a meaningless combination of words. Maybe it could be described as an antimony: 'a self-contradictory phrase such as "There is no absolute truth" can be considered an antinomy because this statement is suggesting in itself to be an absolute truth, and therefore denies itself any truth in its statement.' 'Nothing exists' is similar, because if it were true there would be nobody to either utter it or interpret it.
Interesting to contemplate whether the sentence 'nothing is real' falls into the same trap. I think not, actually, because the brain-in-vat scenario is at least logically feasible. In which case, a distinction can be made between 'what exists' and 'what is real', which I think is a far more philosophically fruitful line of enquiry, or at least contemplation, than 'nothing exists' is.
No shit Sherlock :rofl:
Elementary my dear Watson!
It's seems only righteous that I mention I'll being doing nothing, which is subtracting from all possible things I could be doing on this day.
If I anoint the beginning of time, where there is supposedly 'nothing'- I've just subtracted from something that, in the present exists.
If I was subsiding around that time there's something other than what is apparently nothing... A paradox ensues.
Does this refer to thinking about nothing or not thinking?
Well of course. If a thing exists, it's obvious it doesn't exist.
Yes, a wrong definition.
Thinking about nothing as an object.
Which is the problem. I think Hegel makes a good point, that the negation of being is nonbeing, but that is a fallacy.
Yes, your exposition is accurate. I think Hegel is correct to point out that, "Nothing comes from nothing," is true only if you privilege being as an irreducible metaphysical reality.
I am not a huge fan of Heidegger but I think he makes a valid point, following Hegel, that we do talk about nothing or nothingness and it is not a meaningless concept.
I think of nothingness as negative space in a visual field. It is the space between things that helps define the objects.
If space is nothing, then it forms the world with substance. When Heidegger says "nothing nothings" he means, I think, the flux within us finds itself with its pure nothing. Buddhist find emptiness in themselves too. It's like yin and yang
Hegel does mention Buddhism in the chapter I quoted from.
What is outside the universe? Nothing. I think that is a meaningful idea.
But that which exists can stop existing in its current form. A human can stop existing as a human by dying.
Mass can stop existing as mass by getting converted into energy but all existence cannot become nonexistent it can only return to its most fundamental form which seems to be energy or spatial extent/dimensionality.
Even the Penrose bounce does not suggest a previous Universe becomes nothing before a new ‘Big Bang.’
I don’t think it is meaningful to try to objectify ‘outside’ of everything that exists.
Fine. But I do not consider science to tell philosophy what is real.
I think it does. Why do you think otherwise?
I rely on science more than philosophy to evidence what is real.
Quoting Jackson
Because I perceive the concept of ‘outside of spacetime,’ to be fallacious.
I see.
I certainly did not allege that.
So, here I am in space, as far from anything as I can possibly be. Let's designate a cubic meter as our volume of interest. Now, even way out here there are particles and radiation, even if at very low levels. So I build a box around my volume. The walls are made of material that blocks all radiation and particles. The inside of the box is lined with material that absorbs all radiation and particles. So now we have a box full of nothing. Ok, ok, we'll get a waiver for neutrinos. So... nothing. But what about gravity waves, what about the curvature of space. And even if I could argue my way out of that, then there'd be the quantum field and virtual particles.
So, I guess that means there can't be nothing inside the limits of our universe. What about outside?
Like figure-ground? We could reverse these then, right? With a shift of perspective the negative space becomes the object and the object becomes negative space. Conclusion:no priority can be given to object over negation. This is the post-structuralist ( Nietzsche, Deleuze, Derrida , Heidegger) critique of Hegel, that he prioritizes unity and identity over the negative. The role of the negative and the nothing in Hegelian dialectic is subservient to the unity of the total structure; negation is overcome by synthesis. For these authors the nothing is fecund, affirmational, creative.
That would be Kant.
Added: I do not read Hegel as saying the dialectic ends.
Philosophers like Nietzsche , Foucault ,Heidegger , Derrida , Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty argue that the notion of the nothing as lack is the result of grounding difference and negation on identity and Sameness. They instead ground concepts like identity and sameness , which are the basis of the notion of the empirical object , in difference. Identity is an effect of difference. From this vantage , talking about the ‘nothing’ as a lack of identity is incoherent.
Doesn’t Hegel post a totalization of differences in Absolute Subjectivity?
I do not read it that way. "Absolute Knowing" is more a criticism of Kant's subjective idealism.
Are those guys outside the universe or do you have a point?
Quoting Clarky
I have a habit of posting before I have completed my edit.
Quoting Joshs
I don't conceive of 'nothing' as lack. Nor would I say Hegel does.
Yes, I took the concrete path to the goal. You and those philosophers took the abstract path. We all seem to agree there can't be nothing.
Deleuze embraces Nietzsche’s anti-dialectical perspective against Hegel:
“Pluralism sometimes appears to be dialectical — but it is its most ferocious enemy, its only profound enemy. This is why we must take seriously the resolutely anti-dialectical character of Nietzsche's philosophy.
…the concept of the Overman is directed against the dialectical conception of man, and trans-valuation is directed against the dialectic of appropriation or the suppression of alienation. Anti-Hegelianism runs through Nietzsche's work as its cutting edge. We can already feel it in the theory of forces. In Nietzsche the essential relation of one force to another is never conceived of as a negative element in the essence. In its relation with the other the force which makes itself obeyed does not deny the other or that which it is not, it affirms its own difference and enjoys this difference.”
Quoting Jackson
Too bad we didn't have a debate between Sartre and Carnap.
You mean a thing?
Quoting Joshs
You mean a thing?
Is nothing, 0?
Those others are negative things of sorts with at least some properties to go with their whatever substance. But in any case, if their identity cannot be proven then they cannot be said to 'exist'.
If we consider existence to be a group of properties (one or more, and any), then non-existence or nothingness would be the lack of all properties. It is absolutely undeniable that the current state of the world we live in is not nothingness; however, this does not mean that nothingness will not exist or could not have existed in the past. So, I think the question whether there can be an absolute lack of properties or not is more useful when exploring the topic of nothingness. In my opinion, an absolute lack of properties is not a possibility, and I believe there exists some natural law that prevents this from ever being the case which leads to the necessity of existence - i.e, there always will be at least one property because a complete lack of properties is not possible.
Same kind of question really.
Do not get fooled by words. ‘Nothing’ is generally a reference to ‘absence’. There can be many things in a room but once you have removed them there is nothing in the room. The ‘nothing’ exists in context to there being the ‘absence’ where there was once something. This is a concept that is so engrained in our lived experience that we barely give it a second thought.
The concept of a table is almost certainly nothing to an ant. An ant walking across a table is not in any way state or form aware of a ‘table’ it merely walks from one point to another with no conception of the item we call ‘table’ as a surface made for putting things on to keep them off the floor.
Of course not. "Nothing" is an abstract concept formed by mental subtraction: imagine any set, remove members one by one. What's left? nothing. To claim nothing is something is self-contradictory, or a reification of the "nothing" concept.
Or, nothing exists in the same way something exists.
Quoting Jackson
Nothingness: "The absence or cessation of life or existence." (Offord LEXICO)
"'Nothingness' is a philosophical term for the general state of nonexistence" (Wikipedia)
Do you still need to ask this question? :smile:
Sorry, wiki is for losers. tired of people using wiki and dictionaries to discuss philosophy
That's a new one: Dictionaries and encyclopedias are for losers!
So, you say that I am a loser, since I value a lot dictionaries and encyclopaedias. And you think you are not?
I would rather not have to read such "pearls", esp. in this place, but they are still part of the fun. :smile:
Later.
Addendum :point:
Can you suggest something better? Danke!
I'm not as tech savvy as i would like to be but this link should show you a snipet of a conversation I'm having with an a.i. about nothing in particular.
It seems to me (both from reading this tread and generally thinking about the given topic) that there is a few possible outcomes.
1) Nothingness as a separate object among so called "somethings". For example: number 0 among other numbers or an empty world among possible worlds. In that case nothingness does exist. Although I would argue if that is really "pure nothing" as it possess the same "objectness" as something else. Number 0 has the same "numberness" as 1, 2, 123 etc.
2) Nothingness as a void in material world. In this case I think it depends whether we understand existence as a material condition. If X exists only if it has some material form, status, stance, whatever, then nothingness does not exist. Although the void still seems to be quite "full" when you think about the third case. As it can be understood as a prerequisite for "something", i.e. as an empty space in which we put material multidimensional objects.
3) Nothingness par excellence. Imagine that you have a bowl - this is your "time & space". You can fill it up with a soup or some snacks. Empty the bowl. What is nothingess? Is it the air now filling the bowl? Or maybe it is the empty bowl itself?
No. You throw away the bowl. Now there is nothingness.
And I don't think that the question is still relevant in the third case.
Nothing exists ionly in a ‘negative’ sense not a positive one. So when you frame the term as what think is in a ‘positive’ sense you are just fooling yourself and others as well it seems. You may as well ask about thr existence of ‘colourlessness’ or ‘emptiness’.
People will say things like "nothing is still something" and "how can 'nothing' have a property of existing", which I think are meaningless statements.
In English, the words "no" and "thing" have been concatenated into a noun: "nothing". But it's a special noun. If I say "There's nothing to be afraid of", I am not saying we should be afraid of one thing, that we're labeling "nothing". I am saying there are zero things to be afraid of: we should not be afraid.
And likewise with the universe. If we say there was nothing before this universe, that is not positing a state where a thing we're labeling "nothing" has the property of existence. Not usually anyway.
If we were going to go down the road of trying to make a "real" noun of "nothing", then sure we can demonstrate "nothing" easily. It occupies zero space, so right now there's an infinity of "nothings" in any volume of space.