Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

59563Re: [existlist] Re: Building a better nothing

Expand Messages
  • wsindarius
    Mar 22, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      H,

      You wrote: "I don't believe there is a conflict at all between Krauss's Nothing and the philosophical Nothing. Just different languages. Nature is nature is nature. I think Spinoza was on the right track."

      Response: Well, Krauss isn't acknowledging the ontological mystery, as it were, that there is 'is'. He just reduces 'is'-ness to stuff and energy states. That is the very definition of the ontological/ontical difference. So, I can't agree with you there. Spizonan ontology has a long history of criticism against it. Hegel, most of all. I reject Spinoza's absolute mechanical determinism, at the very least. The main problem with S's system is that it doesn't change. I think Hegel complemented that absolute monism with the notion of immanent dialectical movement.

      Thanks,
      Wil






      -----Original Message-----
      From: existlist <hermitcrab65@...>
      To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Fri, Mar 22, 2013 12:34 pm
      Subject: [existlist] Re: Building a better nothing





      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
      > It may be argued we don't experience Being either, that it too is only a concept??

      ===Yes. Being and Nothing are concepts.

      You are using the English language to symbolize them and scientists use the language of mathematics.

      I don't believe there is a conflict at all between Krauss's Nothing and the philosophical Nothing.

      Just different languages.

      Nature is nature is nature. I think Spinoza was on the right track.

      h.

      > > >
      > >
      >










      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 77 messages in this topic