Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
To understand “nothing”, you must first understand what “what” is. Do we know what “what” is? How is a certain something found in each specific “what”?�
If we think more concretely, then we see a certain general “whatness” that unites and has the essence of each “what”. This caloric content can be said to be the answer to the question: “what is what?” …�
If we follow the apophatic path, then we can say that “nothing “is a negative definition of” whatness”, when neither this, nor that, nor any other something (i.e., neither-that) is separately an exhaustively accurate indication of the understanding of the essence of” what “or”whatness”.
The abstraction of whatness and its manifestations in the world is mainly studied and answers the question ” what is truth?”such traditions as philosophy, Buddhism, Taoism as depersonalistic traditions.
I will also add that in addition to “chtoynost” there is also “ktoynost”. Philosophers and theistic (personalistic) traditions of thinking are also closely involved in the study of ktoynost (the search for an answer to the question “Who is Reality?”).
Scientific disciplines are focused on the study of the” howness “of reality, and carefully studying various qualitative characteristics and laws of the universe, they are looking for an answer to the question” how does the world work?”.
The concept of “nothing” is an indication of” what is “in an apophatic way, I believe that it was actually” what is ” that the first academically recognized Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovyov hinted at when he launched his mysterious term “positive nothing“into the world of philosophy. By itself, without the “what” – “nothing” does not exist.
In other words, if we shake the mysterious bag of “positive nothingness” with a philosophical hand, then in the dry and bare, rapidly disappearing abstract remnant we will find the simple concept of “whatness” as the ultimate abstract term pointing to the essence of what is.
The world is glued together into whatnot-whatnot-whatnot. And our life is only an existential answer to the questions: Who? What? How?… and others similar to them, covering various details and details of our being/non-being with you on the principle of an inverted pyramid. These questions, by the way, are often used by journalists when describing events.
Since the tags here are philosophy and physics, then a little math:
Type: “nothing” in this context is an empty set, and it turns out that” nothing “is a subset of” nothing”, but” nothing “is not an element of” nothing”, it is not”something”.
Nothing it exists and does not exist. That is, as soon as we become aware of it, we think of nothing as both existing and non-existent at the same time. When we say “this difficulty is easily solved,” we mean that it is imaginary. Insolvency. We can say that it simply does not exist. It doesn't exist, and if it does, it's only because it's the result of some ridiculous mistake. The result of an erroneous thought. In our case, this absurdity is a mixture of different nothings. The desire to confuse nothing as a mental construct and nothing as the object of its application. Thus, we can say: this difficulty is easily solved or is an imaginary difficulty, since it is the result of mixing different nothings.
Whereas in reality we should distinguish nothing as a mental construct and nothing as the object of application of this mental construct. So, if we say that “nothing exists”, we mean that nothing exists only as a mental construct, and if “does not exist”, then it does not really exist. That is, in the form of an object of reality (and not in any other form, except in the form of a mental construction).
You can analyze this question in more detail using the following example::
The idea that God created this world out of something that doesn't exist is always rejected by us. The combination of the words “from that…” is applied only, in our opinion, in combination with”what is present – is – exists”. And even if we say, for example, that God created this world out of Nothing, or out of Nowhere, or out of Nothing, we also assume that this Nothing exists. That is, it is present and exists somewhere.
But to give a clear answer to the above question, it is necessary to decide what status Nothing has when It “is”, exists (what it is) and what It is when it is deprived of the status of being. What is, in other words, Nothing when It “is”? And what is It when it is not there?