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

Re: Nothing

Expand Messages
  • Mary
    I think the most understandable exposition of Nothing I ve encountered to date is found in Hegel s Being and Nothing at the beginning of the Science of Logic.
    Message 1 of 77 , Mar 18, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      I think the most understandable exposition of Nothing I've encountered to date is found in Hegel's Being and Nothing at the beginning of the Science of Logic. (To the degree that I understand it, of course.) To say Nothing has existence requires the kind of paradoxical thinking which existentialists are more capable of, especially with regard to the absurd, as the SEP entry acknowledges. Science isn't the sole arbiter for determining and defining concepts; philosophy also challenges assumptions.

      Mary

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
      >
      > H,
      >
      > Well, that question is the question of questions, and can never be fully addressed, as Heidegger correctly insists, but we can start with a few observations.
      >
      > First, Krauss always puts the problem of Nothing within the "ex nihilo" argument, supposedly as in Aquinas' famous proofs. I'll leave that ("the five ways") aside. I think Krauss gets Aquinas getting Aristotle wrong. It's too much for now.
      >
      > What Krauss in any case always does, though, is equate Nothing with no 'things'. "By nothing, I do not mean nothing, but rather NOTHING â€" in this case, the nothingness we normally call empty space." He goes on to further define his 'ultimate' sense of Nothing as when "I take a region of space and get rid of everything within itâ€" dust, gas, people, and even the radiation passing through, namely absolutely EVERYTHING within that region... ." (Chapter 4: Much Ado About Nothing, Lawrence Krauss, A Universe from Nothing)
      >
      > But that is not the philosophical, or better, the ontological meaning of Nothing. What Krauss does is to narrow the ontological into the ontical, that is, from the question about Being and non-Being into the question of stuff. The absence of stuff is not the ontological Nothing.
      >
      > Shall I go on?
      >
      > Wil
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: existlist <hermitcrab65@...>
      > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Mon, Mar 18, 2013 4:54 pm
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: Nothing
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
      >
      > > 2) I rehearse the ontic/ontological problem that is chronic in Krauss' recent book (which I otherwise like), how he gets the philosophical question of Nothing wrong, and thereby misses what the philosophical urgency of the question is.
      >
      > ===
      > Oooo, oooo, let's talk about Nothing!
      > Will you elaborate?
      > I did watch a video of Krauss talking about Nothing
      > on Youtube today to try and catch up.
      > How does Krauss get the philosophical question of
      > Nothing wrong?
      >
      > h.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • wsindarius
      http://www.flickr.com/photos/wil_sinda/8751648669/in/photostream http://www.flickr.com/photos/wil_sinda/8752770770/in/photostream ... From: hermit crab
      Message 77 of 77 , May 18 9:26 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        http://www.flickr.com/photos/wil_sinda/8751648669/in/photostream

        http://www.flickr.com/photos/wil_sinda/8752770770/in/photostream







        -----Original Message-----
        From: hermit crab <hermitcrab65@...>
        To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Sat, May 18, 2013 7:23 pm
        Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Building a better nothing (Wil sees Krauss)






        Very interesting, Wil. I kept wondering how it went. Good thing he didn't
        start spouting off about philosophers, eh? :-D Thank you for the update.
        The first link worked but the second one did not.

        h.

        On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 12:05 PM, <eupraxis@...> wrote:

        > **
        >
        >
        > Hello H,
        >
        > Yes, sorry for my silence. The Krauss talk was nearly identical to others
        > of recent vintage that you can see on YouTube, but he did lay off
        > philosophy a bit and concentrate his sarcasm on Republicans, the South (I
        > am in New Orleans) and string theorists. I got some nice photos of him and
        > said hello (I was part of an invited group, NOSHA). He was pleasant, in
        > that almost-smug way.
        >
        > http://www.flickr.com/photos/wil_sinda/8669528519/in/photostream
        >
        >
        > https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152796725025424&set=a.10152392005530424.946669.654825423&type=3&theater
        >
        > Wil
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: existlist <hermitcrab65@...>
        > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Sat, May 18, 2013 9:04 am
        > Subject: [existlist] Re: Building a better nothing (Wil sees Krauss)
        >
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
        > > Response: As I said, I like Krauss' book and I like him, especially his
        > talks. In fact, he will be here in a few weeks to discuss this very book,
        > and I will be present. My problem with his statements has nothing to do
        > with his manner of doing science; it has to do with his unfortunate
        > dismissal of philosophy and his misunderstanding of ontology.
        >
        > ===Wil,
        > I have been waiting patiently to hear how this meetup went.
        > Please report. :)
        >
        > h.
        >
        >

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]








        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.