Philosophy Now Forum

Nothingness does not exist thus any concept of void negates itself under a contradiction into only being occuring. The voiding of void, or no nothingness, is being itself. Being thus is grounded in a contradiction in terms through a double negation which is cyclical.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 6:30 pm Nothingness does not exist thus any concept of void negates itself under a contradiction into only being occuring. The voiding of void, or no nothingness, is being itself. Being thus is grounded in a contradiction in terms through a double negation which is cyclical.

There are no thing-in-itself and similarly there is nothing-in-itself.

What is 'nothing_ness' is merely a relative idea to something_ness.
Whenever one clings to something_ness there is always 'nothing_ness'.

Thus whenever there is a problem with clinging to 'something_ness' on the individual or group basis, there is likely a solution if viewed from the perspective letting go of that something_ness to the perspective of 'nothing_ness'.

Take for example, theists desperately clinging to a God as something_ness, i.e. the ultimate thing-in-itself, but such clinging contribute to terrible evil and violence to humanity since the idea first emerge.

Thus the logical and rational strategy [at least in theory] is to let go of the clinging to this thing to its relative nothing_ness. If done, there will no clinging to a God and no theists, then, the resultant is ZERO theistic-based evil and violent acts by theists.

The practical in giving up the clinging to this something-ness [GOD, BEING, the ONE] for its relative nothing_ness is not easy due to the inherent unavoidable psychological forces within.

Therefore the solution is to deal with this practical problem is what Buddhism has been doing for >2500 years, i.e. leverage on the idea of 'nothing_ness' aka 'emptiness' i.e. sunyata and anatta.
The resultant is no terrible evil and violence grounded on something_ness since relative nothing_ness cannot ground anything like evil nor violence.

So, is eternity something?

Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 7:14 am So, is eternity something?

As stated there is no thing-in-itself.
Whatever 'thing' [idea] is claimed as eternity, then it cannot be a thing-in-itself, something that is absolutely-absolute.
As such there is no eternity-in-itself.

Whatever is claimed as a 'something' in one perspective, it is 'nothing' in another perspective.

Within the above duality, what is critical for humanity is whether the thing claimed as 'something' [which can be nothing] is real and objective or not.
Whatever is claimed to be real and objective must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

Thus the table you are writing on is something that real and objective because it can be verified and justified empirically and philosophical as real within a specific Framework and System of Reality.

However in another perspective, that table could be an illusion and unreal. Note Russell's deeper reflection of reality,

Bertrand Russell wrote:Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.
.....
Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true. Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities. The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems. Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture. Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

So a table is 'something' and 'nothing' depending from which perspective one realizes the table.

It is the same, what is an ultimate substance could be a particle or wave depending on one's perspective.

As for 'eternity' no matter what one claim as a 'thing', it is impossible to be real because the idea of eternity cannot be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 6:57 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 6:30 pm Nothingness does not exist thus any concept of void negates itself under a contradiction into only being occuring. The voiding of void, or no nothingness, is being itself. Being thus is grounded in a contradiction in terms through a double negation which is cyclical.

There are no thing-in-itself and similarly there is nothing-in-itself.

What is 'nothing_ness' is merely a relative idea to something_ness.
Whenever one clings to something_ness there is always 'nothing_ness'.

Thus whenever there is a problem with clinging to 'something_ness' on the individual or group basis, there is likely a solution if viewed from the perspective letting go of that something_ness to the perspective of 'nothing_ness'.

Take for example, theists desperately clinging to a God as something_ness, i.e. the ultimate thing-in-itself, but such clinging contribute to terrible evil and violence to humanity since the idea first emerge.

Thus the logical and rational strategy [at least in theory] is to let go of the clinging to this thing to its relative nothing_ness. If done, there will no clinging to a God and no theists, then, the resultant is ZERO theistic-based evil and violent acts by theists.

The practical in giving up the clinging to this something-ness [GOD, BEING, the ONE] for its relative nothing_ness is not easy due to the inherent unavoidable psychological forces within.

Therefore the solution is to deal with this practical problem is what Buddhism has been doing for >2500 years, i.e. leverage on the idea of 'nothing_ness' aka 'emptiness' i.e. sunyata and anatta.
The resultant is no terrible evil and violence grounded on something_ness since relative nothing_ness cannot ground anything like evil nor violence.

A thing in itself is a point of change from one phenomenon to another. Nothingness is the absence of form of the actual as the potentiality of one actual state changing to another. Nothingness self negates into form as the potentiality of potentiality is actuality. Being is emergent from Nothingness and individuated to further being through nothingness.


The concept of God is an emergence from reality thus cannot be falsified without accepting some emergences and negating others.

Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 7:14 am So, is eternity something?

Eternity is the absence of time with time being the manifestation of one phenomenon to another as change. Eternity is the absence of change and can be observed as fundamental phenomenon such as 1 or a dot.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 7:59 am

Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 7:14 am So, is eternity something?

As stated there is no thing-in-itself.
Whatever 'thing' [idea] is claimed as eternity, then it cannot be a thing-in-itself, something that is absolutely-absolute.
As such there is no eternity-in-itself.

Whatever is claimed as a 'something' in one perspective, it is 'nothing' in another perspective.

Within the above duality, what is critical for humanity is whether the thing claimed as 'something' [which can be nothing] is real and objective or not.
Whatever is claimed to be real and objective must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

Thus the table you are writing on is something that real and objective because it can be verified and justified empirically and philosophical as real within a specific Framework and System of Reality.

However in another perspective, that table could be an illusion and unreal. Note Russell's deeper reflection of reality,

Bertrand Russell wrote:Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.
.....
Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true. Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities. The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems. Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture. Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

So a table is 'something' and 'nothing' depending from which perspective one realizes the table.

It is the same, what is an ultimate substance could be a particle or wave depending on one's perspective.

As for 'eternity' no matter what one claim as a 'thing', it is impossible to be real because the idea of eternity cannot be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

And how do you justify any specific framework or system of reality without being subject to relativism as one must be justified by another considering each framework/system is empty in itself? You can't without leading to contradiction.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 4:42 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 6:57 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 6:30 pm Nothingness does not exist thus any concept of void negates itself under a contradiction into only being occuring. The voiding of void, or no nothingness, is being itself. Being thus is grounded in a contradiction in terms through a double negation which is cyclical.

There are no thing-in-itself and similarly there is nothing-in-itself.

What is 'nothing_ness' is merely a relative idea to something_ness.
Whenever one clings to something_ness there is always 'nothing_ness'.

Thus whenever there is a problem with clinging to 'something_ness' on the individual or group basis, there is likely a solution if viewed from the perspective letting go of that something_ness to the perspective of 'nothing_ness'.

Take for example, theists desperately clinging to a God as something_ness, i.e. the ultimate thing-in-itself, but such clinging contribute to terrible evil and violence to humanity since the idea first emerge.

Thus the logical and rational strategy [at least in theory] is to let go of the clinging to this thing to its relative nothing_ness. If done, there will no clinging to a God and no theists, then, the resultant is ZERO theistic-based evil and violent acts by theists.

The practical in giving up the clinging to this something-ness [GOD, BEING, the ONE] for its relative nothing_ness is not easy due to the inherent unavoidable psychological forces within.

Therefore the solution is to deal with this practical problem is what Buddhism has been doing for >2500 years, i.e. leverage on the idea of 'nothing_ness' aka 'emptiness' i.e. sunyata and anatta.
The resultant is no terrible evil and violence grounded on something_ness since relative nothing_ness cannot ground anything like evil nor violence.

A thing in itself is a point of change from one phenomenon to another. Nothingness is the absence of form of the actual as the potentiality of one actual state changing to another. Nothingness self negates into form as the potentiality of potentiality is actuality. Being is emergent from Nothingness and individuated to further being through nothingness.

The concept of God is an emergence from reality thus cannot be falsified without accepting some emergences and negating others.

A thing-in-itself is an illusion and is impossible to be real empirically and philosophically.
Try proving a thing-in-itself as real absolutely and unconditional without any reference to any framework of reality.

The most you can do is to say [assert] what a thing-in-itself is, i.e. "it is a thing-in-itself" but there is no way you can realize a thing-in-itself as really real.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 5:09 am

Veritas wrote:So a table is 'something' and 'nothing' depending from which perspective one realizes the table.

It is the same, what is an ultimate substance could be a particle or wave depending on one's perspective.

As for 'eternity' no matter what one claim as a 'thing', it is impossible to be real because the idea of eternity cannot be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

And how do you justify any specific framework or system of reality without being subject to relativism as one must be justified by another considering each framework/system is empty in itself? You can't without leading to contradiction.

A thing-in-itself is impossible to be real.
Thus we have to ignore even the hypothesis it can be real.

What we do is to start from what is experienced - which can be real or an illusion.
Then from what is experienced, we verify and justify it is real within a specific framework & system of knowledge -FSK.
The framework and system is merely a system and process thus it is empty like any process or system, but what is critical are the inputs, process, the control elements and the outputs of the system.
Thus the furthest one can go is to start with experience and therefrom verify and justify whatever experienced is a realization without any concern whether there is a thing-in-itself.

Justified means passing the tests of testability, repeatability, falsifiability within a FSK.
If a table you are working on is justified to be real based on the highest credible FSK, e.g. science, there is no need to speculate there is an table-in-itself that is independent of all conditions including the FSK.

All FSKs are subject to relativism, thus what we rely on is how credible the FSK is in relation to its testability, repeatability, falsifiability.
The most credible FSK is the scientific FSK in realizing truths and facts as the fact-as-it-is.

Your current attempt to factualize that 'something-in-itself' is based on some sort of speculating FSK which will not give you any realization of reality.

Your current drive to factualize that something-in-itself as real is due to a very subliminal inherent cognitive dissonance that compels you that there is something final or of ultimate substance as thing-in-itself.
This drive to factualize that has evolved from evolution since billion years ago and has survival value but it is an abuse to rely on it to infer that is something final, a substance and in-itself.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 7:45 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 5:09 am

Veritas wrote:So a table is 'something' and 'nothing' depending from which perspective one realizes the table.

It is the same, what is an ultimate substance could be a particle or wave depending on one's perspective.

As for 'eternity' no matter what one claim as a 'thing', it is impossible to be real because the idea of eternity cannot be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

And how do you justify any specific framework or system of reality without being subject to relativism as one must be justified by another considering each framework/system is empty in itself? You can't without leading to contradiction.

A thing-in-itself is impossible to be real.
Thus we have to ignore even the hypothesis it can be real.

What we do is to start from what is experienced - which can be real or an illusion.
Then from what is experienced, we verify and justify it is real within a specific framework & system of knowledge -FSK.
The framework and system is merely a system and process thus it is empty like any process or system, but what is critical are the inputs, process, the control elements and the outputs of the system.
Thus the furthest one can go is to start with experience and therefrom verify and justify whatever experienced is a realization without any concern whether there is a thing-in-itself.

Justified means passing the tests of testability, repeatability, falsifiability within a FSK.
If a table you are working on is justified to be real based on the highest credible FSK, e.g. science, there is no need to speculate there is an table-in-itself that is independent of all conditions including the FSK.

All FSKs are subject to relativism, thus what we rely on is how credible the FSK is in relation to its testability, repeatability, falsifiability.
The most credible FSK is the scientific FSK in realizing truths and facts as the fact-as-it-is.

Your current attempt to factualize that 'something-in-itself' is based on some sort of speculating FSK which will not give you any realization of reality.

Your current drive to factualize that something-in-itself as real is due to a very subliminal inherent cognitive dissonance that compels you that there is something final or of ultimate substance as thing-in-itself.
This drive to factualize that has evolved from evolution since billion years ago and has survival value but it is an abuse to rely on it to infer that is something final, a substance and in-itself.

A thing in itself is the point of change of one phenomenon to another. For example a bird as a thing in itself is the point of change to another phenomenon such as a tree or the sky.

The framework/system in itself is empty thus always requires an unproven system beyond it. Science depends on experiences which lie beyond it thus is empty in itself.

You have no stance given any starting point is not only assumed but inherently empty.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 7:23 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 4:42 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 6:57 am
There are no thing-in-itself and similarly there is nothing-in-itself.

What is 'nothing_ness' is merely a relative idea to something_ness.
Whenever one clings to something_ness there is always 'nothing_ness'.

Thus whenever there is a problem with clinging to 'something_ness' on the individual or group basis, there is likely a solution if viewed from the perspective letting go of that something_ness to the perspective of 'nothing_ness'.

Take for example, theists desperately clinging to a God as something_ness, i.e. the ultimate thing-in-itself, but such clinging contribute to terrible evil and violence to humanity since the idea first emerge.

Thus the logical and rational strategy [at least in theory] is to let go of the clinging to this thing to its relative nothing_ness. If done, there will no clinging to a God and no theists, then, the resultant is ZERO theistic-based evil and violent acts by theists.

The practical in giving up the clinging to this something-ness [GOD, BEING, the ONE] for its relative nothing_ness is not easy due to the inherent unavoidable psychological forces within.

Therefore the solution is to deal with this practical problem is what Buddhism has been doing for >2500 years, i.e. leverage on the idea of 'nothing_ness' aka 'emptiness' i.e. sunyata and anatta.
The resultant is no terrible evil and violence grounded on something_ness since relative nothing_ness cannot ground anything like evil nor violence.

A thing in itself is a point of change from one phenomenon to another. Nothingness is the absence of form of the actual as the potentiality of one actual state changing to another. Nothingness self negates into form as the potentiality of potentiality is actuality. Being is emergent from Nothingness and individuated to further being through nothingness.

The concept of God is an emergence from reality thus cannot be falsified without accepting some emergences and negating others.

A thing-in-itself is an illusion and is impossible to be real empirically and philosophically.
Try proving a thing-in-itself as real absolutely and unconditional without any reference to any framework of reality.

The most you can do is to say [assert] what a thing-in-itself is, i.e. "it is a thing-in-itself" but there is no way you can realize a thing-in-itself as really real.

Empiricism as a grouping of sensory data is empty in and of itself. All illusions are emergent from reality thus have a degree of truth value.

Try proving a framework of reality as absolutely real under your own terms and you can't.

Another post about 'nothing'?

Let "Totality" represent whatever totally encompasses whatever all of reality could be. It is an 'absolute' in this case and given we are inside it, we cannot speak of anything beyond it.

Now if there is no "Nothing", is this inside Totality or outside it? That is, where do we logically place "nothing" with respect to Totality, as defined?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 5:57 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 7:45 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 5:09 am
And how do you justify any specific framework or system of reality without being subject to relativism as one must be justified by another considering each framework/system is empty in itself? You can't without leading to contradiction.

A thing-in-itself is impossible to be real.
Thus we have to ignore even the hypothesis it can be real.

What we do is to start from what is experienced - which can be real or an illusion.
Then from what is experienced, we verify and justify it is real within a specific framework & system of knowledge -FSK.
The framework and system is merely a system and process thus it is empty like any process or system, but what is critical are the inputs, process, the control elements and the outputs of the system.
Thus the furthest one can go is to start with experience and therefrom verify and justify whatever experienced is a realization without any concern whether there is a thing-in-itself.

Justified means passing the tests of testability, repeatability, falsifiability within a FSK.
If a table you are working on is justified to be real based on the highest credible FSK, e.g. science, there is no need to speculate there is an table-in-itself that is independent of all conditions including the FSK.

All FSKs are subject to relativism, thus what we rely on is how credible the FSK is in relation to its testability, repeatability, falsifiability.
The most credible FSK is the scientific FSK in realizing truths and facts as the fact-as-it-is.

Your current attempt to factualize that 'something-in-itself' is based on some sort of speculating FSK which will not give you any realization of reality.

Your current drive to factualize that something-in-itself as real is due to a very subliminal inherent cognitive dissonance that compels you that there is something final or of ultimate substance as thing-in-itself.
This drive to factualize that has evolved from evolution since billion years ago and has survival value but it is an abuse to rely on it to infer that is something final, a substance and in-itself.

A thing in itself is the point of change of one phenomenon to another. For example a bird as a thing in itself is the point of change to another phenomenon such as a tree or the sky.

You do not get my point, I repeat,

• A thing-in-itself is impossible to be real.
  Thus we have to ignore even the hypothesis it can be real.

Are you familiar with Kant's thing-in-itself, Ding an sich.

A thing-in-itself has nothing to do with your "point of change of one phenomenon to another."
The thing-in-itself is with reference to the real ultimate substance or essence of a thing which is independent of the human conditions, i.e. existing in itself without any relation to anything else.

The framework/system in itself is empty thus always requires an unproven system beyond it. Science depends on experiences which lie beyond it thus is empty in itself.

Yes the framework/system in itself is empty and ultimately groundless.
But the scientific framework/system is sufficiently grounded with human actions and consensus [plus verifiability, testability, repeatability, falsifiability] that humanity can benefit greatly from its outputs. In this case what count are the utilities and benefits to optimize the well-being of humanity.

There are potential evil from the scientific framework & system and other FSK, and such potential evil_ness are manage by the moral & ethics FSK.

You have no stance given any starting point is not only assumed but inherently empty.

My point is ultimately all things which are claimed to be real are ultimately empty.
There are no things that are ultimately real and substantial.

What is critical is we start from what is experienced as real via a FSK and possible to be experienced and focus on its potential good and avoiding its potential evil whilst optimizing the well being of the individuals and therefrom to humanity.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 6:00 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 7:23 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 4:42 am
A thing in itself is a point of change from one phenomenon to another. Nothingness is the absence of form of the actual as the potentiality of one actual state changing to another. Nothingness self negates into form as the potentiality of potentiality is actuality. Being is emergent from Nothingness and individuated to further being through nothingness.

The concept of God is an emergence from reality thus cannot be falsified without accepting some emergences and negating others.

A thing-in-itself is an illusion and is impossible to be real empirically and philosophically.
Try proving a thing-in-itself as real absolutely and unconditional without any reference to any framework of reality.

The most you can do is to say [assert] what a thing-in-itself is, i.e. "it is a thing-in-itself" but there is no way you can realize a thing-in-itself as really real.

Empiricism as a grouping of sensory data is empty in and of itself. All illusions are emergent from reality thus have a degree of truth value.

Try proving a framework of reality as absolutely real under your own terms and you can't.

My point is there is no thing-in-itself which is absolutely real, thus no framework-in-itself.
What is a framework is conditioned by humans thus there is only framework-by-humans, never framework-in-itself independent of humans.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 6:39 pm Another post about 'nothing'?

Let "Totality" represent whatever totally encompasses whatever all of reality could be. It is an 'absolute' in this case and given we are inside it, we cannot speak of anything beyond it.

Now if there is no "Nothing", is this inside Totality or outside it? That is, where do we logically place "nothing" with respect to Totality, as defined?

In your case you are stuck to the default of relying on the 'container' metaphor where there is an inside and outside to things.

The default is humans and all living things evolved with the existence of "things" which are critical for their survival.

Whilst the realization of 'things' is crucial for survival, it has its negatives that is a threat to the survival of individuals and that of humanity.

The impulse to the principles of cause & effect is also a default inherent within humanity and this drives humans to seek the ultimate cause or the ultimate thing-in-itself - the ultimate substance of all things.

Substance theory, or substance–attribute theory, is an ontological theory about objecthood positing that a substance is distinct from its properties.
A thing-in-itself is a property-bearer that must be distinguished from the properties it bears.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

In seeking for a thing-in-itself, the inevitable consequence is this;

• Substance is a key concept in ontology and metaphysics, which may be classified into monist, dualist, or pluralist varieties according to how many substances or individuals are said to populate, furnish, or exist in the world. According to monistic views, there is only one substance. Stoicism and Spinoza, for example, hold monistic views, that pneuma or God, respectively, is the one substance in the world.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

Note also the similar Theory of Essence, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence

The above theory of substance and essence also lead to the ultimate things of a human being, i.e. the soul, or the wholeness of the Universe.

The reality is the above theory of substance and essence [the thing-in-itself] that generate the idea of a God and soul [as things-]; whilst it is beneficial in one way to survival it also contribute to terrible evilness and sufferings to humanity.

However from the philosophical perspective, it is proven [Kant et al] while things exist, there are no things-in-themselves that lead to the idea of a soul and God.

This is why given that the terrible sufferings and evilness from the idea of thing-in-itself, i.e. god and soul, contribute to so much evil and sufferings, it is optimal to hold on to the truth -there are things but no things-in-themselves.

In other words, given there are things [all of reality] in one perspective, there is also the truth there is "nothing" [no reality of substance] in another perspective [especially clinging to the idea of a thing-in-itself as God or a soul] and that is potentially a threat to humanity in the longer run.

Note the Two-Truths-Theory of Buddhism,

• The Buddhist doctrine of the two truths (Wylie: bden pa gnyis) differentiates between two levels of satya (a Sanskrit and Pali word meaning truth or reality) in the teaching of the Buddha:
  the "conventional" or "provisional" (saṁvṛti) truth, and
  the "ultimate" (paramārtha) truth.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine

The above mean,
1. there is p [thing] and also
2. there is non-p [nothing]
but they exists at the same time but are in a different senses, thus no contradiction.

The above principles are derived to deal with the associated terrible evilness and sufferings arising from the belief of a thing-in-itself as a thing and is real.
The solution is to adopt another perspective, all things which are real in one perspective are nothing in another perspective, thus resolving the related [specific] evilness and sufferings.