[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 329 KB, 609x616, 1521561937292.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14546999 No.14546999 [DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Why is there something instead of nothing

>> No.14547003

that is the question

>> No.14547014

Negation requires an opposite

>> No.14547015
File: 29 KB, 432x580, Josef Thorak - Pieta.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

It involves a separation from temporality, but I will tell you soon.

>> No.14547017

big if true

>> No.14547019

Based and redpilled

>> No.14547021
File: 255 KB, 500x469, 1577511535529.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Can "nothing" be without "something", without "nothing" being "something".

>> No.14547025

Based sophist anon

>> No.14547026

This thought requires existence

>> No.14547036
File: 525 KB, 900x785, base of the world.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>"God lets the oppositional will of the ground operate in order that might be which love unifies and subordinates itself to for the glorification of the Absolute. The will of love stands about the will of the ground and this predominance, this eternal decidedness, the love for itself as the essence of being in general, this decidedness is the innermost core of absolute freedom."

- Heidegger

>> No.14547039
File: 535 KB, 640x636, 1444958616799.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Because non-being cannot be

>> No.14547047

Since when did the requirement of a something give reason to its existence rather than a necessity to the false, as is a dream? At least false in authentic activation.

>> No.14547049


Okay we had our fun guys. Only non cringe answers from this point onwards

>> No.14547051
File: 71 KB, 470x595, devil pepe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

But it can non-be!

>> No.14547052

I know he's a meme around here now, but Parmenides actually does kind of solve this dilemma

>> No.14547060


For existence to exist it must love itself. We just see that by principle of ourselves(which is more than ourselves!).

>> No.14547061

He gives epistemic ground to stand on. He doesn't solve the ontological question.

>> No.14547063
File: 28 KB, 619x453, cc1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

How do you know that something exists

>> No.14547072
File: 897 KB, 1366x768, Roger Scruton with second wife.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I Drink Therefore I Am.

>> No.14547073

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

/thread and amen.

>> No.14547079

Are you just throwing around words you don't understand, because this sentence is incomprehensible in the context it was posted and if you know anything about Parmenides' philosophy.
Parmenides INTRODUCED the ontological question bro!

>> No.14547084

Unironically doesn't give a reason hence>>14547036 and
>He gives epistemic ground to stand on. He doesn't solve the ontological question.

>> No.14547088
File: 1003 KB, 404x347, 1554231969845.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

There is no answer then.

>> No.14547094


>> No.14547101

Because why wouldn’t there be?

>> No.14547103

what's a nothing

>> No.14547106

obviously cause there's no being nor non-being

>> No.14547129

This question assumes that “there existing something at all” is a state in need of an explanation, while “there being nothing at all” is somehow the default state.
That might sound intuitive, but consider this: just as there is an uncountable infinite amount of real number unequal 0 and just one 0, there are uncountable infinite possibilities of “there being something at all”, while there is only one possibility of there being “nothing at all”. The a priori likelihood of there being something is therefore much higher than there being nothing.

>> No.14547131

Cool refutation bro

>> No.14547134


>> No.14547148

>there are uncountable infinite possibilities of “there being something at all”
How do you know that?

>> No.14547149

By the ontological argument God is the greatest being.
Therefore creation must be the necessary act of God.
Alternatively because God wanted something instead of nothing.

>> No.14547171


>Because why?

Because there are things that you don't know and will never know, and that in and of itself should tell you something.

>> No.14547225

Good points. I'd also add that -possibility- itself is a something.

I'd go even further and say that there's no reason to suppose that 'nothing' is anything other than an abstract concept of convenience... In which case, it isn't sensible to talk about 'nothing' as if it is a potential state in the first place.

>> No.14547231

Nothing arrives soon enough, anon
Enjoy asking such questions while (you) can

>> No.14547245

A state of affairs is something too, even if it is null.

>> No.14547256

How do you know that here is something? How do you not know that there isn't nothing?

>> No.14547268

No it's not.
You're an idiot. Something will always be. Nothing is, as you fellows say, a meme.

>> No.14547278
File: 26 KB, 296x255, E4191217-1661-4173-8615-E1213D6B6AEF.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>positions on something

>> No.14547281

Because when you deny existence you utilize and assume something that exists (language, awareness, predication, thought etc.) and that leads to a contradiction. Therefore there is 100% chance that something exists.

>> No.14547287

So where's the nothing then

>> No.14547295

Is there really though?

>> No.14547311

Truth necessarily exists

>> No.14547323

>instead of
that would just be another something, nothing is only itself as much as only paradoxical language can refer an idea of something about something that is impossible to conceive since it doesn't exist.

>> No.14547397

>because God wanted something instead of nothing.
Is God not something?

>> No.14547399

The five psycho-physical aggregates


>> No.14547401

Why should I assume that nothing must be a "default state" rather than something? I see no reason why something can't be the normal.

>> No.14547425

The thread that DESTROYED /lit/ pseuds

>> No.14547435

In what state were you before conception and birth?

>> No.14547468

Check out Derek Parfits article Why this, Why anything

>> No.14547471

All the atoms that currently compose me were around.

>> No.14547487

>Not sure if serious.

Nothingness is an abstraction. It is the negation of being.

>> No.14547519

Perhaps in ontological terms this may be a valid reason to terminate this line of questioning, but in physical terms things only happen because there is a preference for one state of existence over another, ie entropy ie laws of physics, so if the entire universe is “reacting” to reach a preferred state of being the question is why is it not at the terminal state in the first place. Why are we moving towards a destination (e.g time) when in order for us to be “here” relative to “there” something must have caused us to be “here” and not “there”. If the universe spontaneously formed why did it form at a higher energy state than optimal?

>> No.14547546

We share in nothingness while we are conditioned by was and will be. This degree of reality in which we are is conditioned by being but it is not being (it is and is not). Nothingness is not a mere concept of convenience, it is a reflection of Being, not sharing in eternity but in its reflection (indefiniteness).

>> No.14547548

>has no explanation for why those exist

>> No.14547559

Why is something even wondering why there’s “nothing”
Clearly “nothing” as you’re imagining it now, doesn’t exist.
“Nothing” in the proper sense is just space between somethings. This we have lots of.
“Why is there something and nothing?” It hurt your feelings?
Fear not. You will pass into your constituent parts and fade.

>> No.14547578

Lmao jesus christ brainlet, at least you made me chuckle

>> No.14547584

This was stupid but I laughed.

>> No.14547592
File: 57 KB, 500x640, A33B5CE4-CAC2-4F69-97AA-962AC9C730E4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Fake posts

>> No.14547593

who cares?

>> No.14547604

It's either a meaningless question, or one we're not currently equipped to answer.

>> No.14547608

The deepest questions being technically meaningless is not therapeutic but maddening

>> No.14547620

Physical necessity necessitated it.

>> No.14547623
File: 345 KB, 1000x1000, 1579119119672.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Ex Nihilo creation
Heretics begone.

>> No.14547636

Emptiness naturally leads to cyclic existence which in turn leads back to emptiness.

>> No.14547647

Maybe it is more natural for there to be something rather than nothing. Language allows one to construct all kinds of non-sensical questions: what ist the srite of ploot? The speed of red? The amount of abstraction in football fields?
Maybe this is such a question. Maybe one ought to ask why is it like this instead?
Then again we're human and naturally inclined to ask this question and either way you can't prove it's just a semantic misconception.

>> No.14547648
File: 14 KB, 200x252, 777.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>cyclic existence
God is not schizophrenic. There is a specific Telos.

>> No.14547683

>space between somethings
I would like to say that this post was retroactively refuted by based Parmenides, but he also refuted the idea of time, and thus retroactivity

>> No.14547716

read Parmenides

>> No.14547729


>Only non cringe answers from this point on
>biggest cringelord in this thread

>> No.14547747
File: 359 KB, 1297x2377, download.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Madhyamaka sunyata was logically refuted by Richard Robinson, who showed how Nagarjuna's logic was full of holes (pic related). Anyways there are no known examples of "emptiness leading to (cyclic) existence" as you posit and until a good example or reason why this could be true is given it should be rejected as being completely untenable because it contradicts logic and common sense and lacks supporting examples/evidence. If you say that X is empty but leads to or causes the existence of (cyclic) Y then you are forced to say that Y either springs out of nothingness (which is clearly wrong and incoherent) or that Y was already contained in or inherent in X and emerged from it, in which case X is no longer empty because it had Y as it's latent content. Also, your answer doesn't explain why there is emptiness to begin with, or how emptiness could give rise to the world (it can't) or how we could be sentient entities having this conversation if emptiness is the nature of everything (we couldn't). From start to finish the Buddhist notion of emptiness is completely incoherent.

>> No.14547753

A 'Why-question' is a request for an explanation. In the case of "Why is there something instead of nothing?", no such explanation can be given non-question-beggingly since any argument with existential conclusions must have existential premises. This paper is a good overview of the the topic:


>> No.14547764
File: 447 KB, 1630x1328, 1576282570701.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


hello schizo, here are the other 600 times you've posted this image

btw, this is what this guy replies with if you don't respond to this random jstor article he found:
>>It's been 24 hours and none of you ming-mongs have replied to this. All the more embarrassing considering YoU CaN't HaVe Up WiThOuT dOwN mY dUdEz loooooollzzlz lmafaooo :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!1!111! was intended to be the epic GOTCHA retort. Writhing animals.

>> No.14547786

yet it still is

>> No.14547809
File: 94 KB, 907x510, Nothing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>something instead of nothing
Because nothing is unstable.

>> No.14547826

Read Hegel

>> No.14547842

>God is not schizophrenic
He is when he enters my being, yet remains outside.

>> No.14547862

Glad to hear he used a condom.

>> No.14547883

There is no spiritual condom on gods dick, my son.

>> No.14547895

This is such an easy question that it was answered fucking 2500 years ago. Parmenides, born 515 BC, said "we can speak and think of only what exists, ex nihilo nihil fit." Uneducated fucking mouthbreather retards who have an affinity with the "wisdom" of modern-day slave-science, Carl Sagan retardation, and Rick and Morty trivia, who have never opened (and read, though I'm sure they wouldv'e forgotten that step if they undertook the daunting task) a book of worth up in their lives, who have no knowledge of history (other than internet trivia), who are artistically retarded, who are heavy on their feet, clunky, ugly, stupid, would still ask such a question.

>> No.14547906

Zizek literally explains here:


>> No.14547917

It can neither be nor non-be, for it is nothing.

>> No.14547919

Nothing: It neither is nor is not.

>> No.14547935

Were nothing something it would not be nothing.

>> No.14547938

But you were not.

>> No.14547945

Nice coping with the fact that Nagarjuna and sunyata are garbage and were refuted, lmao.

>> No.14548031

And how is the asking built into the hunting

>> No.14548071

define something

>> No.14548120

Unironic answer is nobody knows. Anyone saying otherwise is dishonest

>> No.14548136


not anything; no single thing.
"I said nothing" · [more]
not a thing · not a single thing · not anything · nothing at all · nil · zero · nowt · [more]
having no prospect of progress; of no value.
"he had a series of nothing jobs"
not at all.

>> No.14548213

Because there are demonstrably uncountably many real numbers that are

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.