"But this mere Being, as it is mere abstraction, is therefore the absolutely negative: which, in a similarly immediate aspect, is just Nothing...
"Nothing, if it be thus immediate and equal to itself, is also conversely the same as Being is."
(Hegel)
"Nothing, if it be thus immediate and equal to itself, is also conversely the same as Being is."
(Hegel)
Normie language games mixed with pop science, like usual. I’m not sure why he uses science to rationalize the "incomprehensibility of nothing"
By definition, “nothing” is merely the negation of “thing”. “Nothing” is merely a statement used in connection with “thing”, e.g. the sentence, “This is not a thing”, is identical to the sentence, "This is nothing". If by "nothing" he means "the absence of everything", this would seem to be a very metaphysical or philosophical issue. If "everything" does't exist, then what would exist instead of something? Also how could one possibly diagnose, using a systematic criteria, what is a thing and what isn't a thing?
By definition, “nothing” is merely the negation of “thing”. “Nothing” is merely a statement used in connection with “thing”, e.g. the sentence, “This is not a thing”, is identical to the sentence, "This is nothing". If by "nothing" he means "the absence of everything", this would seem to be a very metaphysical or philosophical issue. If "everything" does't exist, then what would exist instead of something? Also how could one possibly diagnose, using a systematic criteria, what is a thing and what isn't a thing?
Last edited:
De nada
by definition, 'thing' is just an abstraction which is the opposite of 'nothing'
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
