My Ontology of Nothing vs Something and Spinoza's Substance

[Sauwelios]

@Fixed Cross

• Is this a whole?
• No, it’s the whole.

If its not even a whole, then its certainly not the whole.

Are you having fun there?

I see no reason to assume a whole, as in a coherent “thing”.

“[T]here must be ‘something’ which however is no thing—something indefinite and infinite[.]”

Read before you leap.

[anon]

@Sauwelios

@anon

A “whole” requires bounds. Does “everything” have boundaries? If so, what is beyond those boundaries, and if the answer is “nothing” then that refers to either a real nothing which would be a subset of everything, or a meaningless nothing, invented to amuse people who enjoy playing games.

No. The whole must be boundless, as I said. Infinite.

Nothing is whole, in itself. “Wholeness” is a judgment requiring a particular perspective and a contrast that makes some kind of sense. “The whole”, therefore, makes no sense (as used here). There is no wholeness in boundlessness, for the reasons I’ve already given. The only possible contrast is with nothingness, which doesn’t work, as I believe I’ve shown.

[Sauwelios]

@anon

@Sauwelios

@anon

A “whole” requires bounds. Does “everything” have boundaries? If so, what is beyond those boundaries, and if the answer is “nothing” then that refers to either a real nothing which would be a subset of everything, or a meaningless nothing, invented to amuse people who enjoy playing games.

No. The whole must be boundless, as I said. Infinite.

Nothing is whole, in itself. “Wholeness” is a judgment requiring a particular perspective and a contrast that makes some kind of sense. “The whole”, therefore, makes no sense (as used here). There is no wholeness in boundlessness, for the reasons I’ve already given. The only possible contrast is with nothingness, which doesn’t work, as I believe I’ve shown.

Even though my monitor and my keyboard do not have definite boundaries, my monitor is still not my keyboard and my keyboard is not my monitor. The whole—the universe—is my monitor + my keyboard + my mouse etc. etc. There must be an infinity of such indefinite things, because being enclosed by “nothing” is tantamount to not being enclosed by anything.

[anon]

Sauwelios,

“Even though my monitor and my keyboard do not have definite boundaries, my monitor is still not my keyboard and my keyboard is not my monitor. The whole—the universe—is my monitor + my keyboard + my mouse etc. etc. There must be an infinity of such indefinite things, because being enclosed by “nothing” is tantamount to not being enclosed by anything.”

So far so good, until you reify what is merely an infinite set and give it a fundamentally misleading name.

[Sauwelios]

@anon

Sauwelios,

“Even though my monitor and my keyboard do not have definite boundaries, my monitor is still not my keyboard and my keyboard is not my monitor. The whole—the universe—is my monitor + my keyboard + my mouse etc. etc. There must be an infinity of such indefinite things, because being enclosed by “nothing” is tantamount to not being enclosed by anything.”

So far so good, until you reify what is merely an infinite set and give it a fundamentally misleading name.

Is this infinite set a set? I.e., one set? I.e., a whole set?—You see, one cannot talk about anything without reifying it. And as for my calling it “the whole”: that’s what philosophers have always done:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=universe

Philosophy proper, First Philosophy, is the study of the whole, cosmology. Without the concept of “the whole”, there can be no proper philosophy.

[anon]

@Sauwelios

@anon

Sauwelios,

“Even though my monitor and my keyboard do not have definite boundaries, my monitor is still not my keyboard and my keyboard is not my monitor. The whole—the universe—is my monitor + my keyboard + my mouse etc. etc. There must be an infinity of such indefinite things, because being enclosed by “nothing” is tantamount to not being enclosed by anything.”

So far so good, until you reify what is merely an infinite set and give it a fundamentally misleading name.

Is this infinite set a set? I.e., one set? I.e., a whole set?—You see, one cannot talk about anything without reifying it. And as for my calling it “the whole”: that’s what philosophers have always done:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=universe

Philosophy proper, First Philosophy, is the study of the whole, cosmology. Without the concept of “the whole”, there can be no proper philosophy.

You really can talk about things without reifying. For instance, you can say “infinite” or “endless” when talking about existence, rather than metaphysically contrasting something with nothing, seeing this imaginary something as some kind of object or pseudo-object, and giving “it” a proper name which just happens to be a name that an uncountable number of people associate with certain concrete characteristics.

[Sauwelios]

@anon

@Sauwelios

@anon

Sauwelios,

“Even though my monitor and my keyboard do not have definite boundaries, my monitor is still not my keyboard and my keyboard is not my monitor. The whole—the universe—is my monitor + my keyboard + my mouse etc. etc. There must be an infinity of such indefinite things, because being enclosed by “nothing” is tantamount to not being enclosed by anything.”

So far so good, until you reify what is merely an infinite set and give it a fundamentally misleading name.

Is this infinite set a set? I.e., one set? I.e., a whole set?—You see, one cannot talk about anything without reifying it. And as for my calling it “the whole”: that’s what philosophers have always done:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=universe

Philosophy proper, First Philosophy, is the study of the whole, cosmology. Without the concept of “the whole”, there can be no proper philosophy.

You really can talk about things without reifying. For instance, you can say “infinite” or “endless” when talking about existence, rather than metaphysically contrasting something with nothing, seeing this imaginary something as some kind of object or pseudo-object, and giving “it” a proper name which just happens to be a name that an uncountable number of people associate with certain concrete characteristics.

First Philosophy is metaphysics, in the original, Aristotelian sense of the word as reinstated by Heidegger.

Call existence “the infinite” or “the endless”, and you have reified it. In fact, the same goes for calling it “existence”.

[anon]

First Philosophy is metaphysics, in the original, Aristotelian sense of the word as reinstated by Heidegger.

Call existence “the infinite” or “the endless”, and you have reified it. In fact, the same goes for calling it “existence”.

It’s not a requirement of metaphysics to make metaphysical errors. “The infinite” is not an object, of any sort.

Anyway, we’re going round in endless circles here.

Have fun.

[Sauwelios]

@anon

First Philosophy is metaphysics, in the original, Aristotelian sense of the word as reinstated by Heidegger.

Call existence “the infinite” or “the endless”, and you have reified it. In fact, the same goes for calling it “existence”.

It’s not a requirement of metaphysics to make metaphysical errors. “The infinite” is not an object, of any sort.

Anyway, we’re going round in endless circles here.

Have fun.

The infinite is obviously an object of discussion here.