|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 18, 2021 21:05:24 GMT
To conceive nothingness is to conceive a state which is void thus impressionable by any further percieved phenomena. In simpler terms to conceive of Nothingness is to conceive of a state which is open to all of being. Existence alone, in contrast to nothing, bears a truth value because it exists. We conceive of Nothingness by the acceptance of being alone considering any being which is accepted "as is" without thought given there is nothing behind the conceived being.
To conceive Nothingness is to conceive everything as there is nothing behind everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 21, 2021 19:32:31 GMT
I'd be sure in that providing some lexicological analysis to this category of Nothingness (and also 'nothing', 'emptiness', 'dull', 'lacking', 'void', 'vacuum', and so on) would express merely similar understanding between people what was that. I'd say people usually imagine Nothingness as something. I could be wrong, but it doesn't really matter. I'm sure that this is barely a tragedy in any attempts to try to imagine Nothingness.
If to leave be that lexicological side of this question and to address to some philosophical works, then we would find many different views, and among them are not so much aggreement. Some of philosophers would get along about certain definitions, some would be completely against it: as we can see this between HeideggerVSOrtega-y-gasset, HegelVSSchopenhauer, AnalyticPhilsophyVSContinentalPhilosophy, etc. So, my opinion is that - it's useless to rely on philosophical works: we'll fully sink down into that.
What to do then? Any possible inventions of ours risk to appear themselves among the lexicological definitions, or at the works of philosophers. It doesn't mean anything bad, it just shows how close are we to those definitions, and that we're circle around them as "shamanic tribe flamens dancing aroung the tribe's bonfire".
My own opinion on it: either I am totally wrong about anything, or it is impossible to even get closer to what we may call as Nothingness. Our world is filled out of secrets. We cannot define God, we cannot know about Him really. Many things would stay transcendent and incomprehensive for us. How can we reach those limits?.. Reaching such limits would mean that we will have completely stopped: everything will be frozen and immovable. But how to comprehend ourselves in the world that doesn't do any moves? If everything would get frozen, we couldn't do a move.
All what we can hope is to poorly cut that definition of Nothigness to some specific context and to research 'that' Nothingness.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 24, 2021 17:23:57 GMT
I'd be sure in that providing some lexicological analysis to this category of Nothingness (and also 'nothing', 'emptiness', 'dull', 'lacking', 'void', 'vacuum', and so on) would express merely similar understanding between people what was that. I'd say people usually imagine Nothingness as something. I could be wrong, but it doesn't really matter. I'm sure that this is barely a tragedy in any attempts to try to imagine Nothingness. If to leave be that lexicological side of this question and to address to some philosophical works, then we would find many different views, and among them are not so much aggreement. Some of philosophers would get along about certain definitions, some would be completely against it: as we can see this between HeideggerVSOrtega-y-gasset, HegelVSSchopenhauer, AnalyticPhilsophyVSContinentalPhilosophy, etc. So, my opinion is that - it's useless to rely on philosophical works: we'll fully sink down into that. What to do then? Any possible inventions of ours risk to appear themselves among the lexicological definitions, or at the works of philosophers. It doesn't mean anything bad, it just shows how close are we to those definitions, and that we're circle around them as "shamanic tribe flamens dancing aroung the tribe's bonfire". My own opinion on it: either I am totally wrong about anything, or it is impossible to even get closer to what we may call as Nothingness. Our world is filled out of secrets. We cannot define God, we cannot know about Him really. Many things would stay transcendent and incomprehensive for us. How can we reach those limits?.. Reaching such limits would mean that we will have completely stopped: everything will be frozen and immovable. But how to comprehend ourselves in the world that doesn't do any moves? If everything would get frozen, we couldn't do a move. All what we can hope is to poorly cut that definition of Nothigness to some specific context and to research 'that' Nothingness. Imagining nothingness would be to imagine nothing, thus no imagination. To know that we cannot define God is to place a definition on God as indefinable, thus a paradox occurs. God is paradoxical. |
|
