Something Instead of Nothing

[Pedro I Rengel]

To ask why something instead of nothing is itself, the question, a denial of the something there is.

A phisician's question is what is so disturbing about the something that is being denied? The healthier thing will always be either to forget the thing, so nothing is denied, or to adapt to the thing. To become strong enough to deal with the thing. No easy thing!

Philosophically though, we may say that it is a mistake of a question. One may ask: why is there nothing instead of something? Then one is approaching something willed that is not there, the will itself can be seen and analyzed. What was one expecting that one didn't find? To accept that it is not there can help to look at what IS there.

Why is there Diogenes walking across a line and no Xeno's paradox?

Is Xeno's mathematics then not real? Yes, it is real. What is not real is the paradox.

Then there is Shrodinger's cat. What is the psychological value of Xeno's paradox? Frustration, lack of fullfillment, eternally not arriving. Not very useful. And the cat?

I find it to be useful. This doesn't mean I believe if I put an actual cat in an actual box with whatever then it is actually dead and alive.

In both cases, the mathematics generates an amount of results that is useful for computing power.

[Pedro I Rengel]

It is a way to trick the mind into thinking it's not there. Take away its full existence. To imagine nothing in its stead.

[iambiguous]

To ask why something instead of nothing is itself, the question, a denial of the something there is.

Not necessarily. Depending of course on what is necessarily true. But why is it necessarily true that something rather than nothing does exist.

Astrophysicists go back to the Big Bang. For some of them everything there is exploded into existence then out of nothing at all. Not counting what we still don't know about, among other things, dark matter, dark energy, the quantum world and the multiverse.

But ask them to explain what they think they know now in such a way that you can't doubt their answer.

And then there are those who argue that everything that we think exists, exists only inside our head...or inside one or another Sim world...or inside one or another demonic dream.

And then [of course] most folks fall back on one or another God. And He is said to exist necessarily because, well, He's God.

Or She's God or It's God.

If I am even necessarily understanding the point that you make here.

[Ecmandu]

Nothingness is a lack of its own existence, which forces the opposite; hence, why existence exists.

[iambiguous]

Nothingness is a lack of its own existence, which forces the opposite; hence, why existence exists.

That's how some folks here "argue".

They string a bunch of words together that define and defend each other. In a particular order. The logic then goes around and around in circles tautologically.

And not just about something either. About everything.

After all, notice how the post doesn't actually address any of the specific points that I raise above.

And then, not content to ascribe this sort of "definitional logic" to the either/or world, folks of this sort often try to yank the is/ought world into the same sort of scholastic "analysis".

Autodidactically and/or pedantically as it were.

[Guide]

This post of the group seems to systematically ignore the philosophic view of the question. And to favour the naive (and often impudent) British view, as in Russell.

In the philosophic view, the question of the meaning of nothing is primary. In the British view, its meaning is part of an assumed standard common sense concerning what nothing ought to say, what it "means to say" in the sense, of what it wants to say. Of course, here, the group is ignoring the first step, a close examination of the Sophist of Plato. On a side note, I notice much of the adolescent enthusiasm (as in "Fixed Cross" for instance) some of the group members have for Nietzsche comes in total ignorance of the philosophic tradition in which he was in constant dialog. In the same sense, one must not pretend the problem is raised out of a spontaneous and independent moment, apart from the history of philosophy: i.e., the human being's essence as it now finds itself, ourselves.

[iambiguous]

This post of the group seems to systematically ignore the philosophic view of the question. And to favour the naive (and often impudent) British view, as in Russell.

In the philosophic view, the question of the meaning of nothing is primary. In the British view, its meaning is part of an assumed standard common sense concerning what nothing ought to say, what it "means to says" in the sense, of what it wants to say. Of course, here, the group is ignoring the first step, a close examination of the Sophist of Plato. On a side note, I notice much of the adolescent enthusiasm some of the group members have for Nietzsche comes in total ignorance of the philosophic tradition in which he was in constant dialog. In the same sense, one must not pretend the problem is raised out of a spontaneous and independent moment, apart from the history of philosophy: i.e., the human being's essence as it now finds itself, ourselves.

Again, for the life of me, I can't decide if this is something that he really does believe is true, or if the intent is ironic --- an attempt to mock those who "argue" like this such that he is exposing the pseudo-intellectual nature of a "general description" on steroids.

Or, perhaps, something more along the lines of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

Which ironically enough was an attempt to mock folks like me: the postmodernists.

[Guide]

"Guide wrote:
This post of the group seems to systematically ignore the philosophic view of the question. And to favour the naive (and often impudent) British view, as in Russell.

In the philosophic view, the question of the meaning of nothing is primary. In the British view, its meaning is part of an assumed standard common sense concerning what nothing ought to say, what it "means to says" in the sense, of what it wants to say. Of course, here, the group is ignoring the first step, a close examination of the Sophist of Plato. On a side note, I notice much of the adolescent enthusiasm some of the group members have for Nietzsche comes in total ignorance of the philosophic tradition in which he was in constant dialog. In the same sense, one must not pretend the problem is raised out of a spontaneous and independent moment, apart from the history of philosophy: i.e., the human being's essence as it now finds itself, ourselves.


Again, for the life of me, I can't decide if this is something that he really does believe is true, or if the intent is ironic --- an attempt to mock those who "argue" like this such that he is exposing the pseudo-intellectual nature of a "general description" on steroids.

Or, perhaps, something more along the lines of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

Which ironically enough was an attempt to mock folks like me: the postmodernists."

The group advises a read of Plato's Sophist, with an adequate commentary. It's simply impossible not to understand what the group writes for anyone who has studied philosophy at all. One has increasingly the view that there is no one with any serious philosophic training on the board, beside from this member of the group.

Almost everything written, on the view of this group member, is of enthusiastic armatures with a bare familiarity of academic, that means recent, subject matter of general discussion. It is wholly shallow, and shows that no serious study has been carried out by any of the commentators. Everything said has the general pattern, I don't understand this, it must be unaware of what I was told by a undergrad course instructor or a wiki-page. It must be nonsense!

The group should consider: in philosophy no amount of reading matters a bit without adequate knowledge. Everyone learns this by-the-by, at first through sensing the difference between mere reading and serious study of a text. Then one sees how serious study demands method, and familiarity with possible manners of proceeding, only then does such a mater as the abandonment of method have any sense. In the current academy, which is not even a University in the sense of the pre-war University, but rather a mass-marketed situation of the sale of "education", there is not even knowledge of the distinction between serious study and amateur interpretation: which is ideology.

[iambiguous]

The group advises a read of Plato's Sophist, with an adequate commentary. It's simply impossible not to understand what the group writes for anyone who has studied philosophy at all. One has increasingly the view that there is no one with any serious philosophic training on the board, beside from this member of the group.

Almost everything written, on the view of this group member, is of enthusiastic armatures with a bare familiarity of academic, that means recent, subject matter of general discussion. It is wholly shallow, and shows that no serious study has been carried out by any of the commentators. Everything said has the general pattern, I don't understand this, it must be unaware of what I was told by a undergrad course instructor or a wiki-page. It must be nonsense!

The group should consider: in philosophy no amount of reading matters a bit without adequate knowledge. Everyone learns this by-the-by, at first through sensing the difference between mere reading and serious study of a text. Then one sees how serious study demands method, and familiarity with possible manners of proceeding, only then does such a mater as the abandonment of method have any sense. In the current academy, which is not even a University in the sense of the pre-war University, but rather a mass-marketed situation of the sale of "education", there is not even knowledge of the distinction between serious study and amateur interpretation: which is ideology.

See what I mean?

Yet another "general description" that addresses none of the specific points I raised above. Only longer this time. Talk about nothing instead of something!

Or do you take him seriously?

If so, why would you encourage me to?

What insight is he making here that continues to elude me?

Again, if he's not just pulling our legs.

[Ecmandu]

Nothingness is a lack of its own existence, which forces the opposite; hence, why existence exists.

That's how some folks here "argue".

They string a bunch of words together that define and defend each other. In a particular order. The logic then goes around and around in circles tautologically.

And not just about something either. About everything.

After all, notice how the post doesn't actually address any of the specific points that I raise above.

And then, not content to ascribe this sort of "definitional logic" to the either/or world, folks of this sort often try to yank the is/ought world into the same sort of scholastic "analysis".

Autodidactically and/or pedantically as it were.

My argument is not circular .... nice try to get that blonde around the corner though. It worked.

[phyllo]

My argument is not circular .... nice try to get that blonde around the corner though. It worked.

How do you know that "it worked"?

[Pedro I Rengel]

"But why is it necessarily true that something rather than nothing does exist."

Says the man holding a phone or typing into a keyboard.

Do you not see the sicklyness?

[Pedro I Rengel]

Let me put it to you this way: there's not something instead of nothing. There's something instead of China.

[Pedro I Rengel]

I'm not saying we need to obliterate China. I want to fuck many Chinese women and have many half-chinese children. I'm not a Nazi. I am saying that if you keep degenerating China will have no problem taking the stead of something.

By the way, what goes for China goes for any supremacist aspirasionists. There is Islam, there are actual Nazis, there are communists, and who knows what else.

So rephrase the question.

[Ecmandu]

My argument is not circular .... nice try to get that blonde around the corner though. It worked.

How do you know that "it worked"?

Guys who contradict themselves and cannibalize their own rationality, always get the girl. Part of the reason the structure of the cosmos needs remaking.

[phyllo]

My argument is not circular .... nice try to get that blonde around the corner though. It worked.

How do you know that "it worked"?

Guys who contradict themselves and cannibalize their own rationality, always get the girl. Part of the reason the structure of the cosmos needs remaking.

IOW, you don't have any evidence that he did "get the girl". But you imagine it that way because it confirms your theories about the world.

[Ecmandu]

You have to abuse logic to have a woman consent to sex with a male... it's not my opinion, it's a fact of the species. He's investing in a stock that never falls, only accumulates with time. That's part of why the cosmos needs to be restructured. I find it funny that people on these boards consider their contradictions profound, I can name a few, when it is simply the display males make to attract females, nothing more, nothing less.

[Meno_]

Cosmology has progressed by way of advanced radio astronomy to the point that it can compete with philosophy and logic.

The big bang is no unique event , and multi universes have come into vogue
Awfully large living and dead black holes are coming to be understood as testament to reoccurring universes, where even the Milky Way has had numwrous deaths, the past central black hole consistent maybe with billions of stars, which have no actual trace other then some weird radiation

The nothingness of the past as measurable energy hypothesize s not only recurrence theory, but the convergence and the eternal transformation of matter and energy, being and nothingness.

[Fixed Cross]

Guide, you old sweethearr, you haven't even scratched the surface. Go back and *honestly* respond to my posts. Not that you would. But do not gossip about me in other threads instead of trying to confront me.

P - the question, asked by Leibniz originally, is obviously just the expression of dissatisfaction at how being has been defined so far.
So the full thing goes, in shorthand:
Why being? Because Beings. (Demonstrable Self valuing logic --》 quanta of WtP rather than hypothetical monocratic big bang cosmology, illogical origins )

[Fixed Cross]

I need to put it stronger;
For Nietzschean eyes only- the rest can certainly not appreciate any of this.

In the Platonic and post Platonic philosophies, Being was done grave injustice. It was rendered frugal, fragile, porous in the minds of men and so the minds of men were cultivated to become weaker than could be justified, and "God" came to them as a disease, a symptom of their weakness, their being antithetical to being in its premises; these living dead, whose weakness lives on in the superstitions of ambiguous, Guide, and scores of other fugitives from existence here, produced "philosophy" in the form of the presupposition that being was this Platonic whole defined to them by the pristine absence of such filth as their own experiential reality - i.e. that whatever Being was in essence, it was irreconcilable with actuality. Since Plato, this has been the disease now called "humanity".

Because edifices built on weak premises eventually unravel, people like myself, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and indeed the disobedient side of Leibniz came around to restore being into mankind; before us, there were two millennia of zombies, of negations of being, with as the ...'ethos' of the dark ages; - god as torture, plague, pope, life reduced to a reason for death.

What Leibniz commenced as a questioning of Being as a whole, marked a return of health, power to return to Thales, the idea of Being as fundamentally a plurality, thus as at heart godless, and unpredictable. What the rationalist universalists (what came of medieval clergy) had spent a thousand years calling hell was the remnant of observations of being, which I finally restored to mankind.

Before Nietzsche and I committed mankind to the primacy of valuing, philosophy always relied on premises that effectively negated being. The Big Bang theory is a symptom of such negation, the "singularity" "behind" the eruption is the base-premise which effectively negates everything it should produce - the world. The "singularity" is merely an even weaker form of the same fear-inspired premise of the creator-God, a nonetheless very brutish rape of all logical integrity that serves to banish the truth of self-valuing logic, precisely as the left recruits death to serve as the ground to their revolt against the return to existence of man in politics through Trump, who just follows my and Nietzche's playbook, of setting terms locally only to the end of proper structural integrity.

Just as the trillions flow back into the US since Trump set his terms, so value (health) flows back into philosophy since I set mine.
The weak will always disagree with exacting reality, so a definition of reality that itself works as exacting as reality is in fact cruel to them. But then the weak simply have no merit, they are no standard, they might as well not exist. And this condition applied to the whole of mankind when Leibniz posed his question. "Why all this weakness, how is its existence justified?" Why God was held analytically as negation and morally as justification of being.

At that point, only by his phrasing of that question was anything justified. In this questioning of being as weakness, being as strength (actual being) prevailed.

[Guide]

A member of the group that has read Nietzsche for 25 years says: he gets worse and more insubstantial, less volatile, as one goes along. He lifted a great deal from Schopenhauer, and also simply plagiarized George Berkeley, in some cases verbatim, on the score of 18th century "free thinking", substantially as a theme which he took over. Nietzsche would be simply boring if it were not form his knowing well the Greeks, the tradition, and constantly speaking to Plato, more than to Kant, as one might think judging by the mentions of Kant (this is Schopenhauer speaking to Kant). and the superficial and silly denouncement of the transcendental thinking, as discovery of a "faculty".

This group answer should ask: what is the "life-giving lie" in Nietzsche? Why does Nietzsche say the truth is "deadly". Nietzsche rejects the truth, that there is no truth, and makes a new "law tablet". Nietzsche calls the philosophy the Geistigste, most spiritual, will-to-Macht. I.e., Nietzsche does not abandon god, but a god, the Christian god, in order to set Dionysus, the "creative", in his place.

Explication: god was a name for finding out what humans deep down really thought the world was: what is Justice?, what is Good? Now they think it is something still being made.

I'll write another post on this boring Nietzsche raging on theme, just to be more expressionisticly fulsome.

[Meno_]

I am vacation but as soon as back continue to backtrack and try to fill up spaces which I have previously abandoned.

It will not be addressed specifically but general comments thereof, so as to commit or reconnect a thread that seeks to connect so much time space.

That is with regard to squabbles over short termed memories fault line. Since that regard is at heart.

[Guide]

You sound like Avital Ronell, the grosse pig of new-age sexual harassment!

[Meno_]

Well, if there is some usefullness in it for me, besides it's not irreversible.

[Fixed Cross]

A member of the group that has read Nietzsche for 25 years says: he gets worse and more insubstantial, less volatile, as one goes along. He lifted a great deal from Schopenhauer, and also simply plagiarized George Berkeley, in some cases verbatim, on the score of 18th century "free thinking", substantially as a theme which he took over. Nietzsche would be simply boring if it were not form his knowing well the Greeks, the tradition, and constantly speaking to Plato, more than to Kant, as one might think judging by the mentions of Kant (this is Schopenhauer speaking to Kant). and the superficial and silly denouncement of the transcendental thinking, as discovery of a "faculty".

This group answer should ask: what is the "life-giving lie" in Nietzsche? Why does Nietzsche say the truth is "deadly". Nietzsche rejects the truth, that there is no truth, and makes a new "law tablet". Nietzsche calls the philosophy the Geistigste, most spiritual, will-to-Macht. I.e., Nietzsche does not abandon god, but a god, the Christian god, in order to set Dionysus, the "creative", in his place.

Explication: god was a name for finding out what humans deep down really thought the world was: what is Justice?, what is Good? Now they think it is something still being made.

I'll write another post on this boring Nietzsche raging on theme, just to be more expressionisticly fulsome.

In 25 years you weren't able to penetrate beyond the words into the renewed riddle of logic?

Wasted years man. Ouch.