define transcendence

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Can someone show how nothingness transcends, even by means of redefining ‘transcend’…

Currently, to the best of my knowledge, transcendence is something, of which cannot exist in nothing. Transcendence as we know it is relative. Being relative is something, not nothing.

On the other hand, if transcendence was Absolute, is it something? Surely the Absolute is more than nothing.

Is there any way to show the existence of nothingness without being subject to making it something? I see no way in sight. I think there’s definitely a limit to language…

I guess this is my definition of to transcend:

‘To transcend is to find nothing necessary from anything other than what you already transcended to.’

Anyways, show me somehow, or if not, how nothingness has a point of transcendence… by any means necessary.

And, again, I don’t know if this thought is true/false whatever bs … if you can provide an argument or argument against it, I am willing to listen. This is more like connecting the dots, it’s only on number 2 of 200, its that incomplete, but from a nothing standpoint, its nowhere.

2

bwoooaaawwwwhhhhh. pulse pulse

3

I’m serious, I know transcendence is a property of a thing. And that nothingness, obviously, cannot be a thing, let alone be a propety of a thing.

thats why I asked of different definitions of transcendence… not just ‘property of a thing’ becasue that does not work for nothingness…

4

why are you so fixated on nothingness ? and what about nothingness has got you upside down and twirling around about nothingness?

5

My ideas on nothingness come to me just about the time my other threads die down, so It appears that nothingness is all I talk about day in and day out, but yes, i am deeply interested in others views on the subject. You notice this thread was a question. At least I don’t go around with my own seemingly ‘made up - views’ on nothingness and speak nonsense all day, You cannot claim that with questions, only with claiming truth. have a problem with that?

Depending on the nonsense level of the theories, they are far worse to read than logical questions.

6 
what about nothingness has not been discussed to you ?
7

north, [-X

this is not a guessing contest.

Look at the first post on this thread. I want to know if nothingness transcends…

Other than that, theres not a whole lot. Certainly not enough to make another thread…

8

nothingness trancends well… nothing at all how can it ?

9

North, let’s end this thread. I think we’re repeating ideas that we’ve already agreed with on other threads… let me summarize what this mess of a convo will end up at, allow me.

Something cannot be in nothing. That includes: properties, things, possibilities (which is all of the listed), chaos, transcendence, being relative… None of those can be in nothing. And among others.

The point is, absolutely no thing can be in nothing. Its is an oxymoron to say nothing exists, nothing describes what does not exist.

somehow I feel like a fool, for saying, as with all of my threads on nothingness, that somehow there msut be something that exists in nothing despite it being nothing. Even something as wrong as there being a self in nothing…

If I eliminate that desire to have something in nothing, can we end this thread?

10

only if you are truly and I do mean truly satisfied that your thinking upon this idea of yours has been fully answered.

if not continue

north