/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10985084]

Why is there something rather than nothing?

[Anonymous No.10985128]

>>10985084
Let me tell you something

[Anonymous No.10985131]

God

[Anonymous No.10985143]

I can't even conceive nothingness. Practically, it's a meaningless word. The most I can imagine is empty space; which is still something in the strict sense.

That probably proves God.

[Anonymous No.10985151]

>>10985084
So you can ask this question

[Anonymous No.10985190]

Why make the assumption that nothingness can be the only thing?

[Anonymous No.10985198]

DAE think how strange it is to be anything at all

[Anonymous No.10985207]

Life is just an strange illusion

[Anonymous No.10985212]

>>10985143
GOD IS ENERGY NIBBA or both like light or something. Or maybe even meat.

[Anonymous No.10985251]

>>10985128
tell me

[Anonymous No.10985264]

>>10985084
Read Parmenides, Hegel, Heidegger, and literally everything in between.

[Anonymous No.10985268]

>>10985264
>reading heidegger
>reading brainlets

[Anonymous No.10985279]

>>10985268
If you haven't studied Heidegger you can't even talk about Being in a modern philosophical context; he's that influential.

[Anonymous No.10985282]

>>10985279
I'm sorry but he's just not.

[Anonymous No.10985298]

>>10985282
What Kant did for epistemology Heidegger did for ontology, not even memeing

[Anonymous No.10985301]

>>10985084
No one knows
some people claim to know but they don't really know, they just think they know when they actually don't know

[Anonymous No.10985303]

>>10985084
Is there really something though? In Reality?

[Anonymous No.10985306]

>>10985298
heidegger obfuscated his entire work when he picked up and made his own diction

[Anonymous No.10985311]

>>10985303
let's say everything disappeared but a thought form from an infant, it would still exist.


for example math does not rely on actuality to exists, it's a phenomenon outside what is, with a source.

[Anonymous No.10985342]

>>10985084
It has something to do gravitational singularities.

[Anonymous No.10985367]

>>10985306
He did it specifically to distance his terminology from the established philosophical terms and their millennia of baggage. If Heidegger is obfuscation than pretty much all postmodern philosophy is obfuscated too because they do the same thing. Hegel did the same thing using established terms and it's a (beautiful) nightmare to parse though.

[Anonymous No.10985379]

>>10985084

In some places (for lack of a better word), there is nothing, and therefore no one to recognize and comment on the nothingness.

[Anonymous No.10985381]

>>10985367
nah, he was afraid his work would be taken apart to quickly.

I do not condone how people reacted with a like manner

[Anonymous No.10985389]

>>10985207
I remember when I was sixteen.

[Anonymous No.10985406]

>>10985381
Read a bit about his time in the black forest, bringing his manuscripts to Husserl over and over only to destroy them when Husserl didn't get it. He wrote the Being and Time 4 times anon, trying to make the project as coherent as possible. I don't know why he wasted so much time debating the system with motherfucking Husserl if he was just trying to trick people with his clever words.

[Anonymous No.10985417]

>>10985143
It’s like trying to see with your elbow

[Anonymous No.10985419]

>>10985301
On the other hand

[Anonymous No.10985420]

>>10985084
Why is irrelevant, focus on the how.

[Anonymous No.10985426]

>>10985084
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

[Anonymous No.10985431]

>>10985420
that would involve thinking.

[Anonymous No.10985430]

>>10985419
Why cant they speak normally?

[Anonymous No.10985433]

>>10985084
dunno lol
i dont think it's a legitimate question

[Anonymous No.10985436]

>>10985430
People from Alabama? They just made their own diction.

[Anonymous No.10985481]

>>10985406
He needed the backing of the canon, that is literally all that matters.

[Anonymous No.10985492]

>>10985084
because nothing cannot be

[Anonymous No.10985495]

>>10985084
Is there, though?

[Anonymous No.10985528]

>>10985492
I agree.

[Anonymous No.10985574]

>>10985419
damn, oscar knows that real shit

[Anonymous No.10985806]

>>10985143
The fact that nothingness can be conceptualized inherently makes nothing something. If there was no universe at some point in tine there were always concepts but never nothing. If nothingness as a state could truly exist like a black hole but everywhere and no observers then it would have. Nothing isn't real only conceptual.

[Anonymous No.10985876]

>>10985143
excellent post

[Anonymous No.10985877]

>>10985143
Ah, but what of Less Than Nothing?

>The Freedom of a Fatalist-
>Fatalism turns out to be a precondition not only for thinking contingency proper and for avoiding attachment to natural causations, fortune, for getting rid of hope and fear, but also for freedom.
>What does this mean for the notion of freedom?
>If the essence of human beings at least partially consists of the freedom of the will, and if this very freedom can be thought by thinking God as that which I cannot think, in that case my own essence is beyond my grasp. For the same reason this essence is no longer a substantial essence, since I can think it only as that which I cannot think. But it is also not nothing(ness). Although Sartre argues otherwise, Descartes is not a Sartrean. My essence is neither a given essence nor its negation, as both of these options can quite easily be thought. Rather, if I am most God-like in my essence, then this essence must be neither something nor nothing. It must be something that is more than something and less than nothing. If God is the creator of nature, then my essence can neither be simply natural nor simply nonnatural, that is, cultural, for, again, both can quite easily be thought. Only one option is possible: my essence is unnatural. But at the same time, as The Passions of the Soul demonstrates, I am not simply my free will but also a body, and I appear in this world as a natural being with a body. My freedom is unnatural, and at the same time I am a natural being. Thus one must infer that there is in some sense no relation between body and soul, between the two different substances of which I am composed. Yet there is an embodiment of this nonrelation or, in short, there is an unrelation. This ultimately means the following: The human being is the embodiment of the unrelation between nature (which is determined by external causality) and unnature (freedom). It is important that here the un- appears twice in this formula, since this reduplication indicates the difference between a Cartesian and a Spinozist position. For the latter, to cut a very long story short, ultimately the human being is a relational embodiment that is related to something unnatural at its core (God), whereas the former emphasizes the constitutive embodiment of an unrelation between the two and only thereby avoids substantializing (or naturalizing) it.
(Ruda, Abolishing Freedom)

[Anonymous No.10985957]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg2dHxRNh3w

[Anonymous No.10985985]

>Nothing is impossible.
The proof is cause that there's something.
Nothing isn't a state, or space, or period.
There can't be something here and nothing over there, this would give nothing a boundary thereby becoming something.

[Anonymous No.10985989]

>>10985190
>>10985985

[Anonymous No.10986020]

>>10985264
He is literally the chad meme that does homework while consuming beer because alcohol just doesnt affect his brain

[Anonymous No.10986025]

Fucking anglo sub-humans get out!

[Anonymous No.10986052]

The only plausible explanation I can see is a magic man who lives in the sky who made us all and made sin and then got one of the women he made pregnant with his son so we could kill him, for our sins, that he made.
It's the only reasonable, logical reason.

[Anonymous No.10986060]

>>10986052
>Specifically refuting the Christian God, not the idea of god in general
Low hanging fruit

[Anonymous No.10986107]

>>10986060
There is no refuting a Spinoza God. It is useless to try.
Why however is this God not a deistic deity that created the world and walked away? Even if you grant the deistic idea of a creator it doesn't follow that it even cares about anything.

[Anonymous No.10986234]

>>10986107
(Playing devil's advocate here)
Life is a temporary test for the eternal afterlife
As for why the test exists, only God knows, and we're not meant to.

[Anonymous No.10986238]

All that is is and cannot to be. All that is not is not and cannot be. Now fuck off with your nonsensical question.

[Anonymous No.10986261]

>>10986060
Specifically refuting the god that fools on 4chan get upset when you refute. I thought it was silly going after the others as Christians on 4chan have repeatedly pointed out, the other 3000+ god invented by man over the years couldn't possibly be true, they're all based on silly ideas and believed by morons. It's so lucky that by the geographical coincidence of where you were born, you were brainwashed from birth to believe in the one true god. Phew.
If it makes you feel any better, I find each religion as ridiculous as the next. I just find the constant butthurt replies hilarious, considering how if I were enlightened and knew god was real and I was going to heaven and had absolute faith in that, someone else's comments on the matter just wouldn't upset me. I would 'turn the other cheek' as your book says.

[Anonymous No.10986313]

>>10985264

> Hegel

I'll stick to muh Max Stirner Ego Book thanks

[Anonymous No.10986320]

>>10985084

Because there must be something to conceive of that question.

It's not a satisfying answer.

[Anonymous No.10986325]

>>10985084
It just is. No need for dull metaphysics, current physics is enough, and nullifies 90% of questions of the past philosophies.

[Anonymous No.10986329]

>>10985084
Existence are the space through which God loves all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en3YTSViS6s

Listen and you shall know.

[Anonymous No.10986349]

>>10986329
metal tube make loud noise god talky to me

[Anonymous No.10986357]

>>10986349
listen here you little shit

[Anonymous No.10986361]

>>10985143
oh hey descartes, how's the skull?

[Anonymous No.10986373]

>>10985877
>that one anon constantly shilling the Abolishing Freedom book

what hte fuck evne is that book

[Anonymous No.10986391]

>>10986329
A Love Supreme is one of my favorite albums but I can't enjoy that desu, I'll have to try it when I'm high sometime

[Anonymous No.10986466]

>>10985379
but if it is in a place it is there already so it's not like it does not exist

[Anonymous No.10986657]

>>10985251
>Being, pure being, without any further determination. In its indeterminate immediacy it is equal only to itself. It is also not unequal relatively to an other; it has no diversity within itself nor any with a reference outwards. It would not be held fast in its purity if it contained any determination or content which could be distinguished in it or by which it could be distinguished from an other. It is pure indeterminateness and emptiness. There is nothing to be intuited in it, if one can speak here of intuiting; or, it is only this pure intuiting itself. Just as little is anything to be thought in it, or it is equally only this empty thinking. Being, the indeterminate immediate, is in fact nothing, and neither more nor less than nothing.

>Nothing, pure nothing: it is simply equality with itself, complete emptiness, absence of all determination and content — undifferentiatedness in itself. In so far as intuiting or thinking can be mentioned here, it counts as a distinction whether something or nothing is intuited or thought. To intuit or think nothing has, therefore, a meaning; both are distinguished and thus nothing is (exists) in our intuiting or thinking; or rather it is empty intuition and thought itself, and the same empty intuition or thought as pure being. Nothing is, therefore, the same determination, or rather absence of determination, and thus altogether the same as, pure being.

>Pure Being and pure nothing are, therefore, the same. What is the truth is neither being nor nothing, but that being — does not pass over but has passed over — into nothing, and nothing into being. But it is equally true that they are not undistinguished from each other, that, on the contrary, they are not the same, that they are absolutely distinct, and yet that they are unseparated and inseparable and that each immediately vanishes in its opposite. Their truth is therefore, this movement of the immediate vanishing of the one into the other: becoming, a movement in which both are distinguished, but by a difference which has equally immediately resolved itself.

[Anonymous No.10986663]

Why is there this instead of something else?

[Anonymous No.10986919]

>>10986329
Excellent post.

[Anonymous No.10986938]

>>10986657
Smaller Logic? Good shit my man.

[Anonymous No.10986946]

>>10986052
This but unironicly

[Anonymous No.10986950]

>>10985084
Why not?

Who do you assume nothingness should be the default and somethingness should be justified?

There has literally always been something, the idea that there being nothing would be normal is something you made up for no reason.

[Anonymous No.10986963]

>>10985084
>Why is there something rather than nothing?
because nothing can't is

[Anonymous No.10986997]

>>10985084
And how is the asking built into the hunting?

[Anonymous No.10987186]

>>10986938
I believe these paragraphs are virtually identical in the Encyclopedia and volume 1 of Science of Logic. The 'greater logic', or whatever it's called in English isn't a different kind of logic, it's only more expansive in that it offers pages upon pages of commentary and responses to popular criticisms Hegel had to deal with.

[Anonymous No.10987342]

>>10987186
Greater Logic is the Science of Logic
Smaller Logic is the first book of the Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences.

[Anonymous No.10987352]

>>10986466

Place (for lack of a better word) doesn't have to mean somewhere physical. It can't simply mean where there is not something. It could merely be a place relative to time, or relative to matter, where those things do no have any physical expression.

[Anonymous No.10987486]

>>10986261
>It's so lucky that by the geographical coincidence of where you were born, you were brainwashed from birth to believe in the one true god

The fact that you believe in evolution, heliocentrism etc. is also an accident of birth. If you were born in another country or era you would not believe them. Does that make them false?

[Anonymous No.10987763]

>>10987486
>Accepting explanations of observable phenomena is the same as accepting an unobservable phenomenon that explains everything
What people believe is has no influence on what actually is.
I can't even imagine this is a good faith argument

[Anonymous No.10988042]

>>10985143
Nothing is a concept of the absence of presence.

Like many words in the English language, it is not meant literally and can only be conceived through obvious human faculties such as touch, taste, feel, sight, and hearing.

Quit being a little shit.

[Anonymous No.10988632]

There is only arising and ceasing. The Buddha solved this centuries ago bros lol

[Anonymous No.10988918]

>>10985084
So that questions such as this one may be posed and amount to

[Anonymous No.10989009]

>

[Anonymous No.10989015]

>>10985084
Is-ing by neccesity denotes something. You're playing word games with your tiny brain and penis.

[Anonymous No.10989058]

>>10986325
>dude just stop asking questions lmao
>look the questions are nullified
brilliant, amazing that you're the first person to think of this

[Anonymous No.10989068]

>>10985084
Because

[Anonymous No.10989072]

>>10985084
Is there?

[Anonymous No.10989187]

>>10985574
Get the fuck out of here, you filthy normie

[Anonymous No.10990702]

>>10985430
T-Pain said that on twitter, not the baseball player. It's quite obviously ;) a meme, dear redditor sir.

[Anonymous No.10990708]

>>10985084
Because there is no such thing as "nothing".