/lit/ - Literature

[Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ No.6611337]

Where does NOTHINGNESS come from?

[Anonymous No.6611356]

>>6611337
something went terribly wrong

[Anonymous No.6611375]

>>6611337
From the climax which creates the exploding embryo.

[Anonymous No.6611422]

nothing

[Anonymous No.6611441]

Being

lmao

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6611445]

>>6611337
The concept? The human mind, as always.

Why do we count zero? How can we account for a void between matter? It's just a word to help us describe that which isn't there

[Anonymous No.6611448]

>>6611441
Nice.

[Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ No.6611451]

looking up nothing on wikipedia BRB

[Anonymous No.6611457]

>>6611337
Where do negative numbers come from?

[Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ No.6611458]

Existentialists[edit]
The most prominent figure among the existentialists is Jean-Paul Sartre whose ideas in his book Being and Nothingness (L'être et le néant) are heavily influenced by Being and Time (Sein und Zeit) of Martin Heidegger, although Heidegger later stated that he was misunderstood by Sartre.[15] Sartre defines two kinds of "being" (être). One kind is être-en-soi, the brute existence of things such as a tree. The other kind is être-pour-soi which is consciousness. Sartre claims that this second kind of being is "nothing" since consciousness cannot be an object of consciousness and can possess no essence.[16] Sartre, and even more so, Jaques Lacan, use this conception of nothing as the foundation of their atheist philosophy. Equating nothingness with being leads to creation from nothing and hence God is no longer needed for there to be existence.[17]

>Equating nothingness with being leads to creation from nothing and hence God is no longer needed for there to be existence.

whoa that's what you said
>>6611441

[Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ No.6611467]

so, consciousness is nothing

i heard that if you got rid of being, nothing would go away with it
so what would there be if you got rid of being and it's not nothingness

[Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ No.6611473]

G. W. F. Hegel[edit]
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) is the philosopher who brought the dialectical method to its pinnacle of development. According to Hegel in Science of Logic the dialectical methods consists of three steps. First, a thesis is given, which can be any postulate in logic. Second, the antithesis of the thesis is formed and finally a synthesis incorporating both thesis and antithesis. Hegel believed that no postulate taken by itself can be completely true. Only the whole can be true and the dialectical synthesis was the means by which the whole could be examined in relation to a specific postulate. Truth consists of the whole process, separating out thesis, antithesis or synthesis as a stand-alone statement results in something that is in some way or other untrue. The concept of "nothing" arises in Hegel right at the beginning of his Logic. The whole is called by Hegel the "Absolute" and is to be viewed as something spiritual. Hegel then has:[14]

Thesis: The Absolute is Pure Being
Antithesis: The Absolute is Nothing
Synthesis: The Absolute is Becoming

[Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ No.6611479]

okay going to that other website now wikipedia isn't cutting it it's giving me the lame three step thing for hegel brb again

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6611482]

>>6611467
Does a falling tree make a sound when there is no one there to hear it?

Yes, of course.
The universe as "being" will never not be, though we will eventually wither.

[Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ No.6611490]

Since metaphysics is the study of what exists, one might expect metaphysicians to have little to say about the limit case in which nothing exists. But ever since Parmenides in the fifth century BCE, there has been rich commentary on whether an empty world is possible, whether there are vacuums, and about the nature of privations and negation.
>Parmenides

This survey starts with nothingness at a global scale and then explores local pockets of nothingness. Let's begin with a question that Martin Heidegger famously characterized as the most fundamental issue of philosophy.

global scale nothingness vs local pockets of nothingness

1. Why is there something rather than nothing?
>the most fundamental issue of philosophy

What a beautiful face
I have found in this place
That is circling all 'round the sun
And when we meet on a cloud
I'll be laughing out loud
I'll be laughing with everyone I see
Can't believe how strange it is to be anything at all

[Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ No.6611496]

>>6611490
>1. Why is there something rather than nothing?
Well, why not? Why expect nothing rather than something? No experiment could support the hypothesis ‘There is nothing’ because any observation obviously implies the existence of an observer.

Is there any a priori support for ‘There is nothing’? One might respond with a methodological principle that propels the empty world to the top of the agenda. For instance, many feel that whoever asserts the existence of something has the burden of proof. If an astronomer says there is water at the south pole of the Moon, then it is up to him to provide data in support of the lunar water. If we were not required to have evidence to back our existential claims, then a theorist who fully explained the phenomena with one set of things could gratuitously add an extra entity, say, a pebble outside our light cone. We recoil from such add-ons. To prevent the intrusion of superfluous entities, one might demand that metaphysicians start with the empty world and admit only those entities that have credentials. This is the entry requirement imposed by Rene Descartes. He clears everything out and then only lets back in what can be proved to exist.

[Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ No.6611505]

>>6611496
>Well, why not? Why expect nothing rather than something? No experiment could support the hypothesis ‘There is nothing’ because any observation obviously implies the existence of an observer.
this seems dumb
it's not like i was even expecting nothing, it was part of the question

>Why is there something rather than nothing?
maybe there is a way to make this question disappear
anyone have any ointment for this itch?

[Anonymous No.6611510]

i wish you wouldn't liveblog your reading of a stanford article

[Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ No.6611521]

>>6611496
>Is there any a priori support for ‘There is nothing’?
idk

>One might respond with a methodological principle that propels the empty world to the top of the agenda.
i guess one might

>For instance, many feel that whoever asserts the existence of something has the burden of proof.
give me an example dude

>If an astronomer says there is water at the south pole of the Moon, then it is up to him to provide data in support of the lunar water.
what if the data disappeared
why is it up to him
what if an astronomer said there wasn't water at the south pole of the moon does he still have to provide data
what if he said nothing
okay whatever this seems reasonable enough

>If we were not required to have evidence to back our existential claims, then a theorist who fully explained the phenomena with one set of things could gratuitously add an extra entity, say, a pebble outside our light cone.

>We recoil from such add-ons.
speak for yourself

>To prevent the intrusion of superfluous entities, one might demand that metaphysicians start with the empty world and admit only those entities that have credentials.
do my emotions have credentials does my inner experience have credentials can i really provide data for everything how can i provide data for things that i cannot touch and see how can i provide data for NOTHINGNESS

>This is the entry requirement imposed by Rene Descartes. He clears everything out and then only lets back in what can be proved to exist.
okay let's clear it out

[Anonymous No.6611523]

>his metaphysics isn't based on the null set and the power set axiom

[Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ No.6611533]

>>6611510
wish granted

[Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ No.6611696]

bump

[Anonymous No.6611743]

>you will never live in a point in history where Sartre was hanging out with Marxist revolutionaries, Foucault was getting his bones broken by cops in Parisian street battles, Negri was connected to the most intense left-wing insurgency in the West, and Deleuze was high as shit thinking 17th century meta-physicians were the light of salvation for radical thought

So is 1968 to the late 70s the best chance the West ever had at salvation?

[Anonymous No.6611771]

>>6611743
>all dem ands

[Anonymous No.6611819]

>>6611743
idk really

do we romanticize it

was it about as big as occupy wall street or what?