|
The page "Metaphysics" was posted to the newsgroup alt.philosophy on Oct. 10, 1998
. . . . . . .
Oct. 10, 1998: alt.philosophy
Respondent #1:
Anthony Rubino wrote:
>snip the intro>
Metaphysics deals with two fundamental questions:
What exists?
and
What is the nature of existence?
>snip the pathway>
The unusual conclusion that I come to from
such considerations is:
Nothing exists.
However logical the path was that I snipped out
This is obviously nonsense
In common language "Nothing exists" would mean: I do not Exist, Anthony Rubino does not exist and you who are reading this nonexisting post does not exist. Luckily enough Anthony means something different.
>snip>
Consider a void. If you are considering it, you must have some sense of its existence. Now fill that void. Where does the void go? Since it is non-physical, there is no need for it to obey the physical law that no two things can occupy the same place at the same time. So the void, though filled, could still be there.
Again a problem of language.
I would say he is saying: "Space exists" Most people would agree, except perhaps Einstein who considered space might only be a property of mass. As we contain mass ourselves, we will probably never find out, unless we fall into a black hole and survive this. If Einstein was right we should find some space at the other end.
Anything that one can imagine exists, even if its existence is limited to the domain of one thinker's mind.
So there exists a Giant Mickey Mouse as big as the Eifel tower, sitting upon the empire state building.
Again language failure
The notion of this Mickey Mouse exists, but the thing itself doesn't (until Disney puts it up there)
The nature of existence is non-physical, i.e., spiritual. It is also material. In addition to spiritual and material existence, there are relationships which also exist. Thoughts exist, and they are relationships.
Now he's back on solid ground.
There are some interesting implications that may not be obvious. Contemplating them could be enlightening, so I shall just mention them as a transition to the conclusion of the present topic.
All knowledge of what exists emanates from the trinity of an existing universe comprised of the spiritual, the physical, and the relations between them.
Too complex: "The existing universe, and men's thought about them" would be quite sufficient.
Man, created from that existing universe, shares some of its nature; i.e., was created in its image and likeness.
Deux ex machine
Where does "created" come from?
>snip the rest as it is based on "nothing">
I exist and You exists and the Newsgroup exists. Further more anything we agree on, will exist. Anything we bump our head against will exist. to be more precize: Anything we can observe will exist.
This is the only reasonable way to go about.
Hope you see the light.
. . . . . . .
Oct. 10, 1998 alt.philosophy
Respondent #2:
It's good to see that somebody is still carrying the torch of metaphysics.
Nothing exists.
Don't you mean nothingness exists? If one says nothing exists, then neither does the assertion that nothing exists. The author and reader of the assertion that nothing exists, do not exist. It is a non-assertion made by nobody about nothing.
Quoted the rest of my post.
Things that don't exist are not the existence of nothing.
. . . . . . .
Oct. 11, 1998 alt.philosophy
Respondent #3:
Quoted complete post.
Tony, I have organized and determined existence to be material and immaterial. That is all there is and all that can be. Nothing, of course, is the absence of existence.
. . . . . . ...
Oct.12, 1998 alt.philosophy
Reply #1:
An important point that I apparently did not make adequately in my original post is that pure and complete negation is beyond the limit of human consciousness.
My statement that:
Considering the denial of existence takes us - each and every one of us - to the limits of thinking.
coupled with the "meditation" of "nothing" was intended to demonstrate that limit in a meaningful way.
The three responses to my post all insist that "nothing" means pure and complete negation. I don't know whether it is the result of a lack of understanding of what I presented, or, simply a lack of giving the key point the serious thought it deserves since the criticisms are just a flat denial via statements of pre-conceived notions of "nothing".
Before responding to the criticisms, I want to make sure it's clear that my unusual conclusion ("Nothing exists") is followed immediately by the statement: "That conclusion in no way implies the non-existence of anything else."
Respondent #2 said:
Don't you mean nothingness exists? If one says nothing exists, then neither does the assertion that nothing exists. The author and reader of the assertion that nothing exists, do not exist. It is a non-assertion made by a nobody about nothing.
He then quoted the rest of my post, and concluded with:
Things that don't exist are not the existence of nothing.
The suggestion that I substitute "Nothingness exists" for "Nothing exists" comes close to an understanding of the point I tried to make. In the context that I thought I had established, the two terms are somewhat interchangeable. The difference between them is this: "Nothingness" implies a referent whereas "Nothing", as negation only, does not.
What I tried to show is that the closest one can come to the conceptualization of "nothing" as negation is an approach to a concept of the essence of consciousness as its referent. The failure of negation occurs so long as there is consciousness of the intended negation. "I think, therefor I am", is an elegant expression of the basic idea. I merely try to show the extension of that idea to anything - including "nothing" - that the human mind can consider.
The rest of respondent #2's comments merely restate the idea of "nothing" as negation only. I'm not particularly happy about being called a "nobody" that made a "non-assertion" about "nothing", but the idea of making a "non-assertion" does imply some positive aspect at the limit of negation.
I confess that I am not sure of the meaning of the last statement. I take it as an intended paraphrase of the points already discussed.
Oct. 11, 1998 alt.philosophy
Respondent #3:
Tony, I have organized and determined existence to be material and immaterial. That is all there is and all that can be. Nothing, of course, is the absence of existence.
I agree that there is material and immaterial existence. The question is: How do you conceive of the "immaterial" if not by negating the "material"? It seems to me that is analogous to the conception of "nothing" that I have suggested.
What I have said so far should answer some of the objections raised by Respondent #1 as well. However, he does raise some other interesting points which are worthy of serious consideration. I will respond to his objections in my next post, unlesss of course he indicates that I have clarified my position adequately.
. . . . . . .
Oct. 13, 1998 alt.philosophy
Respondent #3:
In reponse to my question:
How do you conceive of the "immaterial" if not by negating the "material" ?
I conceive of the immaterial not by negation but by opposition.
. . . . . . .
Oct. 14, 1998 alt.philosophy
Respondent #3:
In response to my questions:
How do you conceive of nothing?
What distinction do you make between nothing and the immaterial?
I think of the absence of matter-energy, particle-waves, perhaps, consciousness and thought processes, and whatever I may have missed as an empty universe or no universe at all. What remains is void space - a real immaterial which is none of the preceding.
. . . . . . .
Oct. 15, 1998 alt.philosophy
Reply #2:
My apologies for taking so long to respond. I think slowly, but I try to do so carefully. I don't know everything, and I certainly don't always present what I know in the best way, but I try.
I also want to emphasize that I am not playing a "philosophy game". I take what I present seriously. I frequently approach things from unusual perspectives which have given me some important insights. It is my pleasure to share those insights with anyone willing to consider them seriously. I also like to learn and I try to take every objection as seriously as I can.
One of the things that slowed me down in responding to Respondent #1's reply to my original post was its tone of ridicule. I want to make it clear that I take no offense. A ridiculous position deserves ridicule, and obviously Respondent #1 considered my post to be ridiculous. It does, however, make it a little more difficult at times to understand what the actual objections are and to respond to them.
Respondent #1 wrote:
>snip the intro >
>snip the pathway>
However logical the path was that I snipped out This is obviously nonsense
In common language "Nothing exists" would mean: I do not Exist, Anthony Rubino does not exist and you who are reading this non-existent post does not exist
Luckily enough Anthony means something different.
I believe I responded to the major element of this first objection in my previous post (Reply #1). This is merely a flat denial of my position that "nothing" cannot mean pure and complete negation.
How could my position be understood if the basis for it is ignored (snipped) "however logical that path was"? Notice too that it is acknowledged that I meant something different from what is asserted about the "common language" meaning of "Nothing exists". If I meant something different, why ridicule what was not my intended meaning? I also don't understand what luck has to do with what I meant.
Though poorly presented, there are some important points implied here by reference to "common language": some are specifically relevant; some are more general implications that could be a whole other lengthy discussion. I have no quarrel with the common language use of the term "nothing", and I said nothing that implies any problem with its common usage. In common language , the intended negation, and the limit of that intended negation, is usually quite clear from the context. For example: If I am told there is nothing in a particular house, I assume it to be a vacant house. There are lots of things in a vacant house which are irrelevant to the intended meaning. It would be silly to point out that it is filled with air.
In the context of metaphysics, however, the intended negation is frequently beyond the limit of the capability of human consciousness, especially when the intended negation is intended to apply without limit.
The example I presented in my original post was:
Consider a void. If you are considering it, you must have some sense of its existence. Now fill that void. Where does the void go? Since it is non-physical, there is no need for it to obey the physical law that no two things can occupy tha same space at the same time. So the void, though filled, could still be there.
Respondent #1 said:
Again a problem of language
I would say he is saying "Space exists". Most people would agree, except perhaps Einstein who considered space might only be a property of mass.
I don't really see the problem to be one of language. Also, who would agree or disagree is not particularly relevant. I don't really understand what is being objected to since I said nothing remarkable. Of course, I'm saying "Space exists". In normal usage, "Space" is what we observe when we consider the "universe". It is filled with stars, planets, light, energy, motion, etc. A void emphasizes that aspect of space without the things that fill space. The ideas of "filled" and "empty" space are quite common, I just approached them from a different perspective.
The next point I presented was:
Anything that one can imagine exists, even if its existence is limited to the domain of one thinkers mind.
Respondent #1 said:
So there exists a Giant Mickey Mouse as big as the Eifel tower, sitting upon the empire state building.
Again, language failure.
The notion of this Mickey Mouse exists, but the thing itself doesn't (until Disney puts it up there)
With regard to the Giant Mickey Mouse. it took you some effort to conceptualize it. If it ended there, the Giant Mickey Mouse would be an example of an existence
"limited to the domain of one thinker's mind".
But it goes further. You "modified" physical reality by translating that idea to text and posting it to the newsgroup where other minds can be effected by their contemplation of that idea.
Another point. It does not make much sense to claim that a non-existing entity can effect an existing one: i.e.,
If A exists, and B can have an effect on A, then B must also exist.
In addition to the real existence of the concept itself, there is the reality the concept represents. All the elements composing it exist in reality. Using "artistic license" to modify existing elements to form the concept of a Giant Mickey Mouse could be, as you indicate, translated back to reality in conformity to the conception if Disney chooses to do so.
The last two objections by Respondent #1 were:
Too complex:"The existing universe, and men's thought about them", would be quite sufficient
and
Deus ex machine
Where does "created" come from?
I can't respond to the first comment because the intended paraphrase does not make sense to me. There appears to be something missing, probably inadvertantly.
As for the last question I will simply give the glib answer that the "created" came from the "creator".
In conclusion: the whole purpose of the exercise I presented [to correct the philosophical and metaphysical usage of "nothing" as complete negation only] is to establish a heuristic, a ground rule, - a working hypothesis, if you will - that any statement of non-existence include an indication of the domains in which the "non-existent entity" is absent. It cannot be absent from the domain of thought if we are to talk about it.
Then, instead of quibbling about whether or not an entity exists, we could focus on a more fruitful effort to determine what effects, if any, its existence could have on other domains of reality.
. . . . . . .
Oct. 16, 1998 alt.philosophy
Respondent #2:
My last line is best understood as a response to your last line. You:
"Hopefully this will resolve the problem of the philosophical absurdity - the self-contradiction - of trying to discuss things that don't exist."
Me:
Things that don't exist are not the existence of nothing.
I thought that encompassed everything you said by tying your conclusion back to your first assertion. Statements like 'Nothing exists' are self annihilating - literally. If you don't like to be called a 'nobody' then you need to acknowledge you exist.
Quoted my Reply#1 of Oct.12, 1998
|