Philosophy of Nothing

Meditation on the paradox of Leibniz "why are there beings rather than nothing at all?" by Hans Dirk Nagtegaal 1. Plotinus, Spinoza and the Bahá'í vision

2019

Abstract: Exploration of the philosophical necessity in Fundamental Ontology of the concept of Nothingness as seen in the philosophies of Bergson, Kojeve, Sartre in relation to the Divided Line which is the Core of the Western worldview and the philosophy of Differance by Derrida and Being (crossed out) by Heidegger. -- Key Words: In-itself, For-itself, Sartre, Heidegger, Derrida, Deleuze, Ontology, Being, Nothingness, Consciousness, Clouds, Aristophanes, Orthogonal Centering Dialectic, Special Systems, Emergent Meta-system,

2018

The question of Nothingness was always asked in the history of philosophy at the sidelines of philosophical thought. Yet there is another tradition beginning with Plotinus and ending with Mainlander, where Nothingness is given priority or is instrumental in making other concepts like being, essence and God distinct. The intention of the text is to demonstrate that nothingness, through its denial or its affirmation, plays an important role in the conceptualization of being and occupies a central place, which is necessary to recover, in the philosophical tradition.

2016

I trace the concept of nothingness in twentieth century philosophical theology from the work Paull Tillich through that of Martin Heidegger and Keiji Nishitani toward Robert Neville and Ray L. Hart all of whom have taken up the challenge of nothingness. As a specific metaphysical concept or category, these philosophers and theologians would undoubtedly disagree on a specific definition of nothingness; however, I argue they would agree on the vague function of nothingness, which is a relief or contrast to being. Tied up with existence contra nothingness are the possibilities of existence or meontic nothingness. At stake in the encounter with or exposure to nothingness is the ability to refund or redeem one’s ownmost potential and possibilities. How one responds to the specter of nothingness makes nothing matter (or not) in the way one turns from nothingness back to existence. In other words, the stakes are not merely the metaphysical (non)status of nothingness, but the desire to find...

The very idea of nothing (or nothingness) is hard - or even impossible - to conceive or imagine. This means that (at least for myself) it fails David Chalmers' idea of *conceivability*. David Chalmers (the well-known Australian philosopher) claims that if something is conceivable; then that entails that it's also – metaphysically - possible. The problem with this is we can distinguish conceivability from imaginability. That is, even if we can't construct mental images of nothing (or nothingness), we can still conceive of nothing (or nothingness). I, for one, can't even conceive of nothing (or nothingness). But can other people conceive of nothing? Do we even have intuitions about nothing or about the notion of nothingness? So how can we even name or refer to nothing? (We shall see that Parmenides might have had something here.) There's nothing to hold onto. Yet, psychologically speaking, thoughts about nothing can fill people with dread. There's something psychologically (or emotionally) both propelling and appalling about it. And that's why existentialists and other philosophers – with their taste for the dramatic and poetic - found the subject of nothing (or at least nothingness) such a rich philosophical ground to mine. The very idea of nothing also seems bizarre. It arises at the very beginning of philosophy and religion. After all, how did God create the world "out of nothing"? Did God Himself come from nothing? Indeed what is nothing (or nothingness)?

Prajña Vihara, 2018

The question of Nothingness was always asked in the history of philosophy at the sidelines of philosophical thought. Yet there is another tradition beginning with Plotinus and ending with Mainländer, where Nothingness is given priority or is instrumental in making other concepts like being, essence and God distinct. The intention of the text is to demonstrate that nothingness, through its denial or its affirmation, plays an important role in the conceptualization of being and occupies a central place, which is necessary to recover, in the philosophical tradition.

2012

, 52 pages The main objective of this study is to make a comprehensive analysis of the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", which is one of the major questions of metaphysics, and to find a plausible answer at the end, if it is possible. To begin this analysis, a clarification of what we understand by this question is needed first. For the clarification, a definition of 'nothingness' will be sought. Afterwards, the motivation for us to ask this question, the significance of it, and the content of it will be investigated. This investigation will help us concentrate on and discuss within the framework of causation and necessity our understanding of "contingent beings" and "nothingness". Two main approaches sought to answer this question till now are by theists and physicists. Those approaches will be discussed and compared. And at the end of the comparative analysis of these two approaches, a metaphysical approach which will be a layer of them will be sought.

The paper claims that certain problems faced by both physical cosmology and quantum mechanics trace back to a misconception of the nature of nothingness. In addressing this challenge, the paper assumes that the physics and the mathematics of nothingness constitute an epistemic complementary pair that lies at the heart of the edifice of the universe. Given such insight, we are able not only to explain how some fundamental physics challenges might be met, but also to reveal that both inanimate matter and living beings are exactly parallel in their attempts to overcome chaos and maintain order.

This essay combines the hypothesis of the zero energy universe in physics with the Buddhist insight into the emptiness of empirical existence. The hypothesis of the zero energy universe says that because the universe is composed of equal amounts of positive and negative energy -- amounts that cancel each other out -- the universe contains ultimately no energy at all and is in that sense empty. This duality of positive and negative energy, plus the duality between matter and antimatter, leads to a conception of empirical reality as a manifestation of nothingness as coincidentia oppositorum, the ultimate unity of polar opposites. Next, focusing on the regressive nature of the principle of sufficient reason, the author argues for the illusory nature of existence: since no ultimate explanation can be given why there exists anything at all, the very assumption that there exists anything at all becomes problematic. This illusory nature of existence is then explained in terms of the idea that empirical reality is an appearance of antithetically structured nothingness. The upshot is a theory of dialectical nihilism that can be seen as a rationalization of Buddhism and Daoism.

Angelaki, 2012