/lit/ - Literature

>>11033869
The question itself is flawed. Why must there be a reason for existence?

>they still cannot

>>11033892
So you've diverted the question with another unanswerable question.

>>11033897
This, just remember to read him ontologically rather than ontically, otherwise it just seems stupid and that's entirely your fault.

>>11033897
who dat?

enjoy the heideggerpill

>>11033927
wtf does this even mean

>sublates your path

Best argument for the existence of God desu

>>11033931
it means that the question of whether or not there is Something rather than Nothing is basically rooted in human thinking. it's not that there is as actually a choice between there being Nothing or there being Something. what's there is is Being but you are, being the finite and anxious human being that you are, probably not experiencing all that the verb 'to be' actually means.

that's why the book is called Being and Time. time itself is a function and product of human thinking, but not simply any kind of thinking. there is ontic thinking, which is dealing with surface phenomena, and there is ontological thinking, which is thinking the really deep and fundamental questions about the relationship of Dasein - that's you, in heidegger's own unique language, 'being there' - to time, the world, mortality, technology, and all of it.

he's top-tier fun. not everyone likes him, it's true. but i do. people are pretty sharply divided on him, and his relationship to the nazis does not exactly help his reputation as an all-time all-time great philosopher. nietzsche and heidegger are basically why we have the continental-analytic split today, which sucks. but he definitely has a thoughtfully worked-out response to OP's question.

so in brief, the answer to the question of Something/Nothing comes down to what it is that you mean by there being Something/Nothing in the first place, which is grounded in your mortality and finitude as a living subject and experiencing of time, angst, much else.

>>11033869
>the most simple question

Your phrasing is wrong. It is actually the most complicated question of all time.

>>11033869
Why do you think that there are beings at all?

>>11033869
There are beings, but there is also nothing. The trick isn't to focus on why one over the other, but how does one relate to the other? The constant coming-into and coming-out-of of being that we see around us is a part of a larger process of Becoming, though which both being and nothing play their roles.

>>11033927
i must say I agree with this. without any being, like no existence of anything at all, the concept of time is inapplicable, you cannot differentiate past, present and the future if there is no change in anything. no thought and no action means no barometer for time for us to exercise its validity.

>>11033905
Because the original question is loaded with an assumption that is taken to be self-evident.

>>11033869
It may seem absurd for beings to exist, but non-existence is equally questionable. Every possibility is exhausted in the world, and nothing is included in those possibilities. Therefore nothing and being are related, and are actually the same, but only in different stages of development.

how could there be nothing without being

*hits bong happy 420*

>>11033897
based parmesan poster

>>11033892
>why must there be a reason for reason to exist?

>>11034399
yup. he had real magic going on. if you haven't read heidegger yet you're in for a treat. one of my absolute all-time absolute favorite guys.

just to play devil's advocate, i mean of course you can say, no, that doesn't make any sense at all - things happen whether we want them to or not, it's all capitalism anyways, blah blah, stuff like this. but this is to miss heidegger's more subtle points in a number of ways. first, because he has a lot of interesting things to say about the way that technology comes into the world in the first place, again, by thinking; and second, that to think in this way is simply to refuse the opening that he is offering, and keeping open himself, and so on. that there is a difference between veritas and aletheia, the thought which conceals and the thought which unconceals.

that distinction alone was enough for me, since as soon as it registered with me i couldn't stop thinking about it, or seeing it everywhere. just give your attention to a thing, don't force it, and everything suddenly changes. you stop trying to crowbar things in, you can instead allow things to reveal themselves, wait for the question, and so on. he made an enormous impression on lacan also, if you're interested in that stuff.

but really you can just stay with the man himself. true, by 2018 and the digital age and so on some of what he says seems old-fashioned. and, indeed, it is. it's *really* old-fashioned, like, back-to-the-presocratics old-fashioned. but that was where he wanted to be.

also had a lot of good things to say about eastern stuff too, which i like, but...well, yeah. anyways. heidegger is all kinds of interesting. the language can be kind of dense and obscure but once some of the basic stuff clicks, it can sometimes feel like a whole new world. definitely recommended.

>>11033869
>he doesn't know about the threefold aspect of the divine forethought

never gonna make it

>>11033869
>Principle of sufficient reason
>2018

There's no reason for it. It's just a brute fact. It has no explanation.

>>11033897
Parmesian is the best prepastacratic

>>11034399
>you have no way of measuring time without beings, therefore time can't exist without beings

>>11033975
>time itself is a function and product of human thinking
>misunderstanding Heidegger's entire philosophy to this point
You should feel ashamed. Seriously. Stop posting and go read Sein und Zeit again. Pay special attention to the part where he talks about the difference between historiography and historicity, and realize the immensity of your misunderstanding. Heidegger must be one of the most anti-anthropocentric philosophers to have ever lived.

>let's invent language to better communicate where food is
>let's try to use said language to explain everything else
>be amazed when language fails, call it philosophy

According to most Eastern metaphysics, "things" DON'T actually exist, and are merely projections of consciousness, which itself is void and illuminated.

Everything exists so that I could have kinky sex

>>11035863
t. reddit

>>11033869
>WHY
only secular humanists use the word why

>>11033869
>>11033905
No, there must not be a reason for existence.

>>11035843
for only like 10% of 'eastern metaphysics' does that even come remotely close

This is a question of physics, not philosophy.
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/a-mathematical-proof-that-the-universe-could-have-formed-spontaneously-from-nothing-ed7ed0f304a3

Also most of philosophy is just a bunch of autists jerking of eachother. There hasn't been a good philosopher since the greeks.

>>11035883
One of the principal questions of Aristotle, who was essentially a monotheist.

>>11033869
Find me an example of Nothing so I may study what Nothing is, and then I will answer your question.

>>11035966
Nothing? Well it's the privation of something.

You see, in this case these are opposites. In order for nothing to exist, something has to exist. And that's where that philosophical issue ends.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

>>11035949
>I don't understand philosophy so I'll make a strawman attacking it

Good lord

>>11035868
t. incel

>>11036019
What's there to understand? lmao

>>11036065
Not only you do not understand, you do not know what there is to understand. Do you now understand where you stand, friend?

Quatuum fluctuations of the void.

There. Problem solved.

>>11035935
prove it

>>11033869
That existence exists is axiomatic and an irreducible primary. It doesn't need to be proved or explained.

>>11035883
And you know what they say about them!

>>11036199
This.

>>11033869
Nonexistence can not be.

>>11035949
t. brainlet materialist

>>11033869
Consult the Bible or Big Book brother.
Both are pure truth and knowledge passed down by our forefathers for no other purpose than to spread wisdom and good works for your soul and for mine.

>>11034450
>>11034798
Mmmm.... Parmesan...

>>11034422
/thread

>>11033869
Nothingness is a human construct, it is not real. Therefore, asking "why" is meaningless, because there is no other reason than that's the way it is.

>>11033869
Becase it appears that we exist in a universe in which stuff and beings exist. Next question.

>>11033892
>All questions are flawed
Guess I'm the smartest cookie in this thread

>>11033869
Everyone's telling you to fuck off basically.
>there just _is_ something, 'nothing' doesn't make any sense
>thinking in human terms
>assuming assumptions
>if there wasn't anything we wouldn't be asking these questions

Yeah, I get it. Humans are patten recognition machines and sometimes we see patterns or create them where there are none. We are imperfect and limited in our knowledge and observations.
But I want to to empathize with you, OP provided you're not just trolling. I don't want to simply reject human nature. This world, being conscious in an unconscious void, thinking the unreasonable - that's pretty... crazy, amazing, I don't know. It just is something and I think it's an important part of the human condition. It doesn't matter if there's no answer.

>>11035949
>There hasn't been a good philosopher since the greeks.
I wonder why Einstein was so fascinated with Schopenhauer and Spinoza...