Btw, Wayf, I don't think it's helpful to further conflate, or confuse, philosophy with mysticism (or with woo :sparkle:) — 180 Proof

Truths is knowledge which is usually hidden away from us according to ancient Greek philosophers.
Truth in Greek is Altheia, i.e. something to be revealed from what is hidden.

Hence truths require verification and proof in philosophy. What is obvious and apparent in daily perception are not qualified as truths. In that sense, isn't mysticism usually related to religious sense? You wouldn't say that a sceptic and mystic are the folks whose beliefs are the same kind.

I agree with you that the book's content was very rich, detailed and interesting. It is good that the prediction was wrong. :) It wasn't the book, but the Mayan calculation's fault for the wrong prediction suppose.

It is up to them whatever boundary they set for their perceptual capabilities. But you do notice often, they are in deep confusion with the world, and objects they try to understand, when they get a little abstract.

If there is no other 'world' for us, then there is nothing behind this world of ours, so there is no meta-physics
— Wolfgang
Metaphysics in philosophy is not when you refer to some other world; you can be fully metaphysical even without any reference to any other world. — Angelo Cannata

:up:
Metaphysics is a methodology i.e. the way to look at the world and object, which is "beyond", not apparent and obvious. Metaphysics is not some possible world itself.

I recall having an old paperback book called "2012". In the book, the world was supposed to end in 2012, with all the reasons similar to above they listed in the book, and how the Mayan calculation for the end of the world had been set for the year of 2012.

It would be a matter of drawing the boundaries for one's perception. Some folks thinks that grammar and meanings are all there is in the world, and they reject and deny all other existence on the basis of linguistic criteria. In that case, their perceptual ability would be confined in the boundary they set.

Some folks only accept what they see and hear in the physical world, saying nothing else exist. Then that is their boundary of the perception.

But some folks extend their perceptual scope beyond what they see and hear, and using language and grammar only as tools for their reasoning and understanding the world beyond the vista and physical sensibility looking for the abstract truths, then their perceptual capability extends to metaphysics from epistemology.

People have different epistemology for their own perception, and it is categorised by the boundaries of the perceptual possibility they set for themselves.

Again, our semantics are too different for me to engage in meaningful discussions with you on this particular topic. — javra

OK, that's fair enough. I tried to explain what I think and understand of the concept. As I said, initially it was not a logical concept to me to accept. But after thinking about it second time, it seems actually a very useful concept to further work on. I am glad that I have the concept, and will be further studying the cases, which it could be applied to.

I take it that by "absolute nothingness" one means absolute non-being rather than being which is devoid of things and hence thingness. Nirvana, as one example, is reputed to be devoid of any thingness while yet being, hence not being nothingness. — javra

Again I am not too familiar with Buddhism, but Absolute Nothingness can be a useful resource or concept for the Buddhists for their aim of of meditation in endeavour to achieve the state of Nirvana.

Wiki has some synoptic info on Nirvana "Nirvana is the goal of many Buddhist paths, and marks the soteriological release from worldly suffering and rebirths in saṃsāra.[2][3] Nirvana is part of the Third Truth on "cessation of dukkha" in the Four Noble Truths,[2] and the "summum bonum of Buddhism and goal of the Eightfold Path."[3]"

Nirvana has also been claimed by some scholars to be identical with anatta (non-self) and sunyata (emptiness) states though this is hotly contested by other scholars and practicing monks.[web 1][7][8][9][10] In time, with the development of the Buddhist doctrine, other interpretations were given, such as the absence of the weaving (vana) of activity of the mind,[11] the elimination of desire, and escape from the woods, cq. the five skandhas or aggregates." - Wiki on Nirvana

This makes sense, because Buddhists believe the human sufferings come from the bodily nature and desires of the beings. The only way to achieve the freedom is after the time of the being's death. However, the beings don't want to die just to achieve the freedom from suffering. Instead, they can try to separate their bodies from minds via meditation aiming to achieve the absolute emptiness, viz Absolute Nothingness, which could be construed as the state of body-less with only the mind existing in the actual world.

Not saying, Absolute Nothingness is an officially proved concept for representing all these cases, but certainly it seems a useful concept to keep in one's pocket when thinking or explaining about the abstract objects and concepts in metaphysics, logic, physics or even religious topics.

I made it clear what my background presumption in this respect was. To be clearer: Do you or do you not interpret nothingness as equivalent to non-being in you're arguments, this as I've explicitly stated I so far assume you do (with emphasis on this being an assumption)? Else do you take non-existence to be something other than non-being? If so, how are the two concepts different to you?

There is no one correct answer here. But the answer you provide will have significant baring on how the issue of nothingness is commonly addressed. — javra

I think Absolute Nothingness can be interpreted as a property of Non-being too. Every being is not just a being, but it also encompasses its origin (which is the past of the being), and the future in it. All beings were non-being at one time, but one day and moment, it manifested into a being by some causal conditions either physical or mental.

Every being which is a human does think about the existence prior to their birth, and also the possible existence after their life in the actual world.

Also non-being, absolute non-being can be used for different levels of beliefs in one's own existence.

The current existence as a living being in the actual world would be a being. This is a belief and also a fact.

But when one believes in the existence of past life, and afterlife, then the existence could be named as non-being. One has lived in the past or existed as some other being in the past before birth, but there were changes of the being via change of time, or some event, the being in the past has gone through transformation to non-being. Then the current being has come to existence.

When the current being dies the physical death after the course of life, then the current existence will cease to exist. In that case, what does the being become? A non-being. A non-being is a being that has no physical body, but the soul still intact as a Cartesian substance, being invisible and unable to communicate with the livings due to lack of the bodily existence, but still able to be present in the actual world having all the mental states intact perceiving, knowing and feeling just as a non-being, if one believed in afterlife and has faith in the existence of souls. Concepts of non-being could be useful to attribute the possible existence to it.

If one had absolute no belief in the existence of possible non-beings, then for them their prior existence and afterlife existence would be Absolute Nothingness. It would be something one never experiences in real life, but presumed, or inferred existence. Or non-existence, if one wants to call it. But there is no reason why one cannot call it an existence too.

Because an isolated empty space occurs relative to givens, such as its surroundings, and is thereby not absolute nothingness. (absolute does mean complete without exceptions).

As to the video you've linked to, it seems to me to pose a trick question from the get-go. By the very concept initially specified in the video, an "absolute empty space" (whose very cogency my addressed contention questions) cannot contain a bucket of water, never mind distant galaxies and starts, for the occurrence of any of these things would make it other than an absolute, i.e. a literally complete, empty space. Besides, Newtonian conceptions of absolute space have been debunked some time ago by the theory of relativity, no? — javra

Absolute Nothingness is a useful concept to use in explaining the existence of Absolute space, or relative space which is absolute. A relative space can be made into space which is totally empty with no particles of air, and in total vacuum state could be called an absolute relative space.

It could sound contradictory, but then if we think about the case where we call the planet of venus morning star or evening star depending on when you see it, why not? It is just a matter of widening one's understanding of the concept in conjunction with the object, be it physical or mental nature.

And the distance-less space you mentioned is also quite an interesting concept I feel. Distance is only possible when there are objects in space, or some markers for the measurements to take place between them. In absolute space with no objects in it, distance would not exist or be meaningless.

That's perfectly fine, but I want to point out that my post, or else contention, was in the form of a question, and not in the form of an argument one then can agree with or disagree with: Again, in what sense can space occur, and thereby be, in the complete absence of distance(s) between givens? — javra

I am not very knowledgeable on QM, and QM is not my first interest in my readings, but I feel that for the whole universe to exist, there must have been absolute space first. Without absolute space as absolute nothingness, no physical objects, motions or changes are possible. Time itself is from changes of the objects, hence without space there are no motions, no changes hence no time would be possible either.

Kant was quite right in establishing Space and Time as dual entities in human perception of the world as the precondition for the possibility of experience. Space is definitely physical. It exists outside of the human mind, but it also exists in the mind as a priori condition for visual perception and experience.

Absolute nothingness can be a priori concept which denotes the prior state of the universe before it was born, or the aftermath of existence of the universe, if it ends in some future time as a deduced entity or state, which has been existence and will keep existing through eternity.

A handy concept in your pocket to explain the possible state of the universe before and after its existence.

This "we" which you here reference, they'd be "interested in looking into the ideas were arguments with possibly some evidence" to be provided by me for the way that the term nothingness gets interpreted by you in your arguments? I don't get it.

I made it clear what my background presumption in this respect was. To be clearer: Do you or do you not interpret nothingness as equivalent to non-being in you're arguments, this as I've explicitly stated I so far assume you do (with emphasis on this being an assumption)? Else do you take non-existence to be something other than non-being? If so, how are the two concepts different to you? — javra

First time when I came across the concept "Absolute Nothingness", I was like so many other folks here, it is an illogical concept, doesn't make sense, blah blah and tried to disregard it. But when I thought it more, I found it actually quite an interesting concept. It can be used to cover, or explain many things beyond we take as existence.

As I said in the previous post, that one of the philosophical aims is about widening, deepening and enriching one's perceptual capabilities. The concept like this will help us to achieve that, and it is worthwhile in keep thinking over trying to come up with some logical proof that it can make sense.

I have not thought about the case where Absolute Nothingness can be linked to Absolute Non-being. But I think it is an interesting concept too. More later~

If you say so ... — 180 Proof

Just sayin ... :D

↪Paine Many folks are just intellectually lazy.

Not asking for spoon feeding,
— Corvus — 180 Proof

It sounds like a coward nonsense uttered by a grumpy old man fearing to give answers he claimed to possess, when asked. That itself is laziness. :chin:

Things can be existent, not existent or half existent too.
— Corvus
To be a thing is to exist. If you don't understand that, then there's no point discussing further. — Relativist

Please back your statement up by clarifying and defining what "to exist" means.

Philosophy is about being able to see beyond the things existent, widening and deepening your perceptual capabilities. If you limit yourself your perception to the visible physical objects only, then you will not improve your perceptual abilities from the ones of the philosophyless folks just discharging their remaining lifetime in the mundane world. If that is what you opt to do, then it is pity, but I can't help that.

Was just saying to 180 that, it would be better if each folks who read Spinoza and arrived at their own answers could come out into the open public forum to share their own answers. 180 proof sounds he did, so why not do so, was a suggestion.

Ontic= existing. Nothingness is an absence of existence. Nothingness existing is self-contradictory, like married bachelor. — Relativist

Things can be existent, not existent or half existent too. An absence of existence is also an existence.
Every existence has its history of existence. Prior to the existence, it was non existence i.e. an absence of existence. Then there were conditions for the birth of existence, and that is how all existence came to being existence.

A married bachelor is possible logically and in the real world. A bachelor just signed for the marriage certificate in the registry office, but not having gone through the religious ceremony yet is a married bachelor under the eyes of the religious community he belongs.

Reading feeds the historical ideas and concepts on the subject. Reading helps widening your perspectives.

What is an example of an objective system?

Each philosopher requires a lot of effort to hear what is being said. Is "objectivity" being able to answer simple questions without all that work? — Paine

Each of us start from subjective point, but aims to arrive at the objective ideas and concepts which is called truths.

then it sounds like it is not in the realm of the objective system
— Corvus

Philosophy does suck like that sometimes. — Lionino

Philosophy is "Auf dem Weg Sein" according to Heidegger. An existence on the road heading for endless journeys via the dialectic process.

I will have to be honest with you and tell you that I got that information off of the internet. I have not read Spinoza first-hand yet, only read about his philosophy instead from secondary sources, so I can't really say how Spinoza is clearly influenced by Descartes. I am a bit busy these days resting (no joke) and it's not a terribly exciting matter for me, so maybe you could bring us the answer to that question? :smile: — Lionino

Sure, no problems. Take it easy, and enjoy being busy resting. That sounds pretty a good way of life actually. :D

Each reader has to answer that for herself after studying Spinoza (or any other metaphysician) for herself. My spoon-feeding apparently isn't helping you better understand Spinoza's God (i.e. substance/natura naturans (re: reality)). — 180 Proof

Not asking for spoon feeding, but thought it would be nice if you elaborated on the metaphysical suppositions of Spinoza since you have volunteered to decipher on the God concept.
If each reader has to read Spinoza and has to come to their own answers, then it sounds like it is not in the realm of the objective system.

God was happy t
— Corvus

↪Corvus The KJV says 'And God saw the light, that it was good.’ The attribution of emotion is yours. — Wayfarer

The attribution of emotion wasn't mine. I can confirm that I was not there when God was creating the world and light. There was no one around in the vicinity when God saw the light, and felt good. It must have been God who felt good. Not me.

And there are many occasions when God was either happy or angry due to the people's conduct and situation in the bible as far I am aware. Therefore the Christian God in OT was a personified God with humanistic emotions and passions.

I take it that by "absolute nothingness" one means absolute non-being rather than being which is devoid of things and hence thingness. Nirvana, as one example, is reputed to be devoid of any thingness while yet being, hence not being nothingness. — javra

That is an interesting view on Absolute Nothingness. As long as you have arguments with possibly some evidence, we are interested in looking into the ideas.

There are a few possible cases that Absolute Nothingness can be attributed to, from metaphysical, logical, epistemological, physical and even linguistic perspectives. If we look at it from linguistic and logical perspectives, we call the planet venus as morning star or evening star. Then why couldn't you call an isolated empty space as absolute nothingness? Because they share the common qualities for the concepts and existence. Absolute space is also a physical entity demonstrated by Newton in his bucket experiment.

If so, in which sense can space occur, i.e. be, in the absence of any and all distances?:

Distance is always relative to things - even if they're construed to not be material (e.g., the distance between two psyches: two psyches might be very far apart, this being a distance, strictly due to their differing views ... if, that is, one were to not take this example as being purely metaphorical). At any rate, here is my contention:

If there are no things between which there is distance, then there is no occurring distance period. And if there is no occurring distance, I so far fail to see how there can occur any sensible understanding of space. Again, what does distance-less space signify?

(The quantum vacuum state yet has distances between particles that appear out of it and disappear into it, for instance.) — javra

I will think about this point, and get back here for update, if I can come up with any idea either for agreeing or disagreeing. But here is a good article on the topic in SEP.

Nothingness is a concept (not ontic). We formulate it based on other concepts (eg the concept of an empty biscuit tin). Biscuit tins are ontic, but there are no biscuit tins that are truly devoid of contents. That's pure conceptualization without any real world referrent: nothingness is not ontic. — Relativist

Nothingness is a concept, but it is also ontic. Nothingness is the only concept which can be applied to space. Because they share common qualities such as emptiness and invisibility. Nothingness / space is the prior condition for the biscuits to exist in the tin. If the tin had no space (nothingness) in it, and it was filled with full of candies, then you cannot put your cookies in it.

When you say Absolute Nothingness, it would be the space with absolutely nothing in it, not even a particle of air. The total vacuum state of the space can be called Absolute Nothingness.

My point was that a phrase that entails a contradiction cannot have an ontic referrent (i.e. there can exist no object that is described by a contradiction; it is logically impossible). You had said, "And for something X to be impossible, it must first exist". It makes no sense to claim an impossibility has to exist. I think this may get back to your blurring of the conceptual with the ontic. — Relativist

This is wrong assumption. For something to create a contradiction, it must be existence either in the actual world as physical objects or in the propositions. You cannot make a meaningful statement about something, if something was not existent. Because to know something was contradictory, you must have known or perceived the object or concept you are stating about.

You haven't made an empty set, you have conceptualized one. Sure, you can conceptualize nothingness by starting with an empty biscuit tin, then conceptually disregard the air it contains, the quantum fields that exist everywhere, and then ignore the biscuit tin itself. What's left: nothing is left. — Relativist

Yes, that is where nothingness comes from. Therefore the origin of nothingness is external to human mind, not internal to human mind.

If something is impossible, it cannot exist. It is impossible to be simultaneously married and unmarried, so it is impossible for someone to be a married bachelor. — Relativist

But married and unmarried is not existence. They are analytic concepts. But think of this case. For you to make a meaningful statement that it is impossible for you to be married or unmarried, you must first exist. If you didn't exist, it is impossible to say that it is impossible for you to be married or unmarried.

Does God have emotions and passions like humans? I would regard that as anthropomorphic projection. — Wayfarer

Have you not read the bible? I recall God saying "Let there be light, and there was a light. God was happy to see the light in the world he created." - The Genesis

Spinoza's substance (i.e. nature or god) is a metaphysical supposition , not an empirical theory. — 180 Proof

So, what does Spinoza's God do for Spinoza or for the rest of us in this planet?

Nothingness is an abstraction mentally constructed from other abstractions: in particular, set theory. It is similar to the concept of an empty set. Empty sets don't exist in the real world: they are defined as sets with no members, while sets are purely conceptual groupings. — Relativist

That cannot be always the case. You can make up an empty set from a biscuit tin, which contain no biscuits. Empty set can be made up from empirical world objects.

And for something X to be impossible, it must first exist. I
— Corvus
That's self-contradictory. — Relativist

How could something be impossible in the actual world, if it didn't exist?

No. Concepts are mental "objects", and the subtraction process is entirely a mental activity. — Relativist

Anyhow "Absolute Nothingness" itself must be from external to you, because without the object called "abstract nothingness", how could you have formed the concept inside your mind? Where did it come from? What gave a birth to the concept "Absolute Nothingness"?

You must have known something about it too. If you didn't know anything about it, then how could you deny its existence?

And for something X to be impossible, it must first exist. If it doesn't exist at all, then how could be judged as impossible?

No. Concepts are mental "objects", and the subtraction process is entirely a mental activity. — Relativist

But you still need data to subtract from outside of you? You must know what you are to subtract from what. That what must come from outside of you? If you say, no, then how do you know what to subtract from what?

I don't see how there could be any. Nothingness is a concept that is mentally constructed by subtraction, but it has no real-world analogue. — Relativist

But isn't the subtraction external to your mind? Surely you must have subtracted something from something else from the objects external to youself. You couldn't possibly subtract a concept from the concept, or did you?

Or is it also an internal mental event?

The bold part seems equivalent to:
Absolute nothingness is impossible because something exists.
and
Something exists: therefore absolute nothingness is impossible — Relativist

What are the connections / relations between something and absolute nothingness?

the logico-mathematical structure of the universe — 180 Proof

aka "the laws of nature — 180 Proof

That sounds like the substance of Spinozan God is purely mental, conceptual and immaterial. Would it be correct?

But again, if Spinoza is translated as saying there is one real Subject or Being, I think it conveys his meaning better than saying there is a single substance. — Wayfarer

Then would it be the God in Christianity or Judaism with emotions and passions like those of humans'?
That would be the God usually normal religious folks think of, and are familiar with. It wouldn't be the Spinozan God for the usual religious folks believe in, which is supposed to be substance, infinite, cause-proof, effect-proof, and unknown. They wouldn't have even a faint idea what it is in actuality.

It is very close in spirit to some forms of Indian Vedanta philosophy. — Wayfarer

Not familiar with Indian Hinduism, but aren't they a religion founded in polytheism?

Related to Aristotelian, but mostly how philosophers of the time were using it, basically: something that exists.
“By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself”; “By attribute I understand what the intellect perceives of a substance, as constituting its essence”; “By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence.”
— SEP — Lionino

Wouldn't it be the case, then to relate / attribute God to substance seem an ambiguous attempt in logical connection.

Very in line with Descartes' use, he influenced Spinoza. — Lionino

In what sense did he?

I did some reading in the link and the published books on substance and God, but I couldn't quite see what the true existence of substance at all. Spinoza seems to be saying that Substance is infinite. It exists on its own, and knows itself. It is independent from causal effect.

In Aristotle, it seems to be anything which is not compound. Therefore even a human can be a substance. In Descartes, body is substance, because it has mass which can be measured in size and weight. It persists through time. Mind is substance, because it thinks. But God is not substance, unlike Spinoza's view. Hence Spinoza's God is not a traditional religious God in Christianity or Judaism. His God seems to be nature itself. But then what is the point of God? Why not just call it nature rather than God?

My question is still is there anything which represents "substance" in the actual world? If there is, then what is it? Or is it some deduced or inferred object in the mind via reasoning?

With all this bs in mind, I am looking for some objections. Does anybody know of a philosopher or philosophical project/ question that is more interesting or important? Who addresses the above issues better than Neitzsche? — SatmBopd

Heidegger wrote on Nietzsche in 4 volumes, and they look cool. I am sure Heidegger covers most of the topics listed in the OP in his own philosophy.

Monotheism, on the contrary, the rigid consequence of the doctrine of one normal human being—consequently the belief in a normal God, beside whom there are only false, spurious Gods—has perhaps been the greatest danger of mankind in the past: — Vaskane

But then, most of the major religions in the world have been Monotheism. Would it mean that, the majority of population in the societies in history preferred the monotheism? Or could it mean that monotheism was used for some other purposes than pure religious practices viz. control of the society and population through the enforced educations and political means?

Glaucon has the last word. “Look at everything.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chorus:

When looking glass looks at looking glass, not only is what they see not local, it’s not localizable. — ucarr

You seem to have been confused between your mind and the objects of your perception. What you see and hear, the content of your perception is not your mind. There must be far more than just the content of your perception in your mind.

In that case, what is Spinoza's definition of God or reason for non-existing God?
If my previous post is not clear enough, then you ought to either read Spinoza's Ethics, part one "Of God" or, at least, read this summary

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#GodNatu

How does he explain the physical world we live in, souls and the meaning of human life?
Again, Corvus, read the Ethics or this article — 180 Proof

Thanks for the link. Spinoza has been in my reading list, but still haven't managed to start.
When I opened the "Ethics", and read a page or two, I could see Spinoza starting the book with a title "Concerning God". So God or the concept of God seems to have had been a main part of Spinoza's philosophy. He seems to be using the concept of "Substance" to attribute the concept of God.
Any idea what the "substance" meant in Spinoza? Could it be Aristotelian? Or something else?

Not really clear what might be meant by that... — noAxioms

It is just one of the different scenarios of what the nature of time might be.

We seem to have gone off on a supernatural tangent. Not my problem. — noAxioms

That wasn't anything to do with a supernatural tangent. It was just an expression to emphasise that you cannot reverse time, and no one in the whole universe can. No one said that was your problem.

And BTW, 'object' is very much just an ideal. There seem to be anything physical about what constitutes an object.
I'm getting pretty far off topic here. — noAxioms

You have been for sure. OK, please carry on. I am bowing out here.