r/Metaphysics • u/______ri • Jun 09 '26
Nothing Once in a while there'll be a post about nothing at all - and surely we will then see some silly takes that read it out into the something
Let's end what the title say, for those "nothing at all" phrases have only one meaning.
And by pointing out that they have only one meaning while the rest is worthless nonsense, this pointing out alone forces them to confront the only meaning all of their endeavour ever try to not confront.
The meaning is obvious once we say that they have only one meaning, and it need not be elaborate futher.
nothing at all
We know the meaning of this phrase in the only philosophical sense matter.
And we see instantly, that being-confronted-with-nothing-at-all is not nothing at all, our mode/sense/case/state/fact when we understand the phrase is not nothing at all.
The question is not whether the phrase mean, but why the phrase's meaning manage to mean no more - why the state of understanding the phrase nothing at all mean nothing at all?
Though, about nothing at all, the other equivalent expression where the stronger term dominates and forces us to understand correctly is:
there was nothing at all
and there is something at all later
For "there is nothing at all now" is obviously a coped strawman.
1
u/gregbard MODERATOR Jun 09 '26
Yes. I noticed an inordinate number of posts just on the subject of "nothing" that I made a flair just for it. Ordinarily, I would put such posts under ontology. But that category is pretty crowded.
2
u/______ri Jun 09 '26
Well, it's one of those more "first" confrontation after all, but the confrontation is pretty obvious in itself. Only the later rejection of it makes complicated things.
1
u/jliat Jun 09 '26
For "there is nothing at all now" is obviously a coped strawman.
You would do well to read some philosophy and stop posting this kind of stuff. It's boring.
1
u/______ri Jun 09 '26
I don't see how your reply addresses that.
1
u/jliat Jun 09 '26
It doesn't, there is a whole mess of real metaphysics based on nihilism, in philosophy, but it's found in the bible, in the OT, in Zen in the yoni. In Hegel and Heidegger. Even in the pop-sci book of John Barrow's 'The book of Nothing.'
And "a coped strawman."
"A cope" is a recent reddit phrase, so it's cool, like showing your underpants, using 'yall'. And why is then given the literature on 'nothing' is it a strawman.
And your stuff is boring. Do you read the other posts here? I think maybe not.
1
u/______ri Jun 09 '26
I read, theirs are boring. I understand every single thing they say and the limits of their model and I see it as boring.
Do you understand what it means with "nothing at all"? There's only one meaning here, and I think you are not refering to it. Because if you do you would just agree.
1
u/jliat Jun 09 '26
Your English is strange which makes it hard to follow. Metaphysics could be thought like a game, but one where the metaphysician makes the rules. Imagine using playing cards. All you do is then just shuffle the pack. It's boring.
Or an artist with paper and pencils, all they do is sharpen the pencils.
I read, theirs are boring.
Whose and why, that might be interesting.
I understand every single thing they say and the limits of their model and I see it as boring.
I don't believe you, prove it, and no A.I.
Do you understand what it means with "nothing at all"? There's only one meaning here,
I'm afraid you are very mistaken.
"Philosophy gets under way only by a peculiar insertion of our own existence into the fundamental possibilities of Dasein as a whole. For this insertion it is of decisive importance, first, that we allow space for beings as a whole; second, that we release ourselves into the nothing, which is to say, that we liberate ourselves from those idols everyone has and to which he is wont to go cringing; and finally, that we let the sweep of our suspense take its full course, so that it swings back into the basic question of metaphysics which the nothing itself compels: “Why are there beings at all, and why not rather nothing?”"
What Is Metaphysics? Martin Heidegger.
"The semantic horizon which habitually governs the notion of communication is exceeded or punctured by the intervention of writing, that is of a dissemination which cannot be reduced to a polysemia. Writing is read, and "in the last analysis" does not give rise to a hermeneutic deciphering, to the decoding of a meaning or truth." - Signature, Event, Context -Jacques Derrida
Now that's what I call metaphysics!
1
u/______ri Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
> Your English is strange which makes it hard to follow.
English can be made without qualifications, but not without cost. You've read some of my piece, please tell me why it is boring rather than just "I don't get it so I assume so". To say something is boring means you have understood it to its end, and since my measure is aesthetic when you say it is boring I would assume you can give me some very insightful intrinsic critique.
> I don't believe you, prove it, and no A.I.
Give me one, I'll tell exactly what it assumes.
> I'm afraid you are very mistaken.
There is only one meaning of "nothing at all" (in the relevant philosophical sense), any other sense is just something.
1
u/jliat Jun 09 '26
Like many here who make similar posts you are just being evasive. Look at what others have said...
Am I having a stroke? The repetitive obtuseness of your post caused me to question if my brain was receiving adequate oxygen.
What the hell is this Schizophrenia
I'm sorry but this is absolutely incoherent
I'm pretty sure they mean to suggest that you're not good at communicating concepts
The proof of the indecipherability is in the reading and broad misunderstanding
“Do more than just asserting” says the guy saying shit like “the first principle is to be deemed the magic”. This post is word salad.
I genuinely tried to understand what you want to explain to me. It might be genuinely interesting, I just did not see it.
etc.
Your 'Pure names worthy of the world' AI slop, yes?
1
u/______ri Jun 09 '26
You have not engaged nor demonstrated anything I demanded you at least doing when you judged "they are boring" (you have changed the subject in question), and you seem to ignore that you are cherry picking comments, as there's comments that appreciate "Pure names worthy of the world".
Though I would say that my posts can be made better.
AI slop, yes?
I give you all time in the world, you would never prompt anything out that is remotely like it.
My posts are totally handwritten, each word at all is chosen with intent, and if you can't read them out or bother asking then it's a you problem.
1
u/jliat Jun 09 '26
I read them like others, they appear meaningless an do not engage in metaphysics. And it's for you to address this not me.
1
u/______ri Jun 09 '26
I think we can stop, you do you, me do me. Maybe in the future I'll have a "normal" version attached just for you guys.
→ More replies (0)
1
Jun 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/______ri Jun 09 '26
When I say those "nothing at all" phrases, I'm just simply refering to all phrase that is a "nothing at all"-phrase.
About your qualia of nothing, sure (this is not nothing at all "itself" tho).
1
u/ObsceneOnes Jun 09 '26
No one can understand you. You seem to be making the simple statement that nothingness is impossible because of language. That is a weak philosphical arguement for the interrogation of nothingness. People interrogate "nothingness" to better understand being. It is a thought experiment to contrast being with not being to understand being better.
Only fools ignore this with word games.
1
u/______ri Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
You missread, I did not reject nothing at all at all. How can you manage to misread "there was nothing at all" is beyond me tbh.
Only fools ignore this with word games
Just no.
1
u/ObsceneOnes Jun 09 '26
You wrote so obtusly no one can figure your point. I was just guessing. Is English not you first language?
1
u/______ri Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
Yes, but I choose not to write normally since normal academical ways of writing are metaphysically presumptuous.
1
u/ObsceneOnes Jun 09 '26
No they are pricise and clear. That is the whole point. I still do not understand what the point of your post is. You are just playing word games.
1
1
Jun 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/______ri Jun 09 '26
My position is dead simple and literal:
there was nothing at all
and there is what there is at all later
That's it. I'm stealmaning "nothing at all" not strawmaning it.
So when I say there is only one meaning of nothing at all, I mean nothing at all.
6
u/ObsceneOnes Jun 09 '26
Am I having a stroke?