• Robin Pannenberg
    4
    I was recently thinking about... well... nothing, so I wrote a little text about how nothing could be described and set up 4 "Rules" for it.

    4 RULES OF NOTHING

    1. Nothing is the absence of any existence.
    It is also often described as death or non-existent.
    If something is nothing, it isn’t something, because it isn’t living or nonliving, it has no existence and therefore it also has no consciousness.

    2. If something is dead there still exists matter of it, but it has no organic functionality, which leads to an absolute absence of life, but not directly to nothing,
    while the death itself is experiencing nothing.

    3. Nothing can’t be reasoned because it is the opposite of anything, this means that no color, not even white or black can describe it because it absolutely isn’t imaginable. If anyone would try to imagine what nothing is, he wouldn’t come to any conclusion, because he would need to imagine a state outside of existence, which would mean that there is no time and space, just nothing.

    4. If something has never existed, it can’t have had any existence and therefore it is nothing, however, ideas are a whole different thing, because they are made by creativity, which comes from observation and interpretation of something. Although this is a subjective form of existence because the object someone thinks of isn’t directly existing if it isn’t already there, so the Idea exists, but the object itself isn’t existing.


    I thought about discussing how accurate this definition of nothing is
    and would like you to give your opinion on it.

    With kindest regards,
    Robin Pannenberg
  • BlueBanana
    873
    which leads to an absolute absence of lifeRobin Pannenberg

    Not correct, unless you claim bacteria,plants, individual cells have consciousness.

    3. Nothing can’t be described because it is the opposite of anything, this means that no color, not even white or black can describe it because it absolutely isn’t imaginable.Robin Pannenberg

    You're just describing it by attributing the property of not being describable by colours to it.
  • CuddlyHedgehog
    379
    individual cells have consciousness.BlueBanana

    Interesting. And you know that because..... :chin:
  • BlueBanana
    873
    I'm not sure whether you're saying that they do have consciousness or there was a misunderstanding, but I said "unless". Now if the former is the case, I just don't see any reason to believe so.
  • CuddlyHedgehog
    379
    we cant be sure either way
  • BlueBanana
    873
    We can't but in the absence of reasonable theories supporting one claim, the opposite can be called knowledge in practice imo.
  • Robin Pannenberg
    4
    1. Plants probably have some sort of conciousness 2. I directly reffered to things that are already dead and death excludes conciousness. 3. I'm probably gonna change describable into reasonable, so it makes more sense. Thx for your opinion anyways
  • BlueBanana
    873
    Plants probably have some sort of conciousnessRobin Pannenberg

    Interesting. Can the same be said about anything that's alive? Body parts?

    death excludes conciousnessRobin Pannenberg

    The implication doesn't work the other way around.
  • fishfry
    3k
    In the synagogue one day the Rabbi kneels and puts his forehead to the floor and says, "Before you oh Lord, I am nothing."

    The Cantor puts his forehead to the floor, and says, "Before you oh Lord, I am nothing."

    The janitor is passing by and sees them. He kneels and puts his forehead to the floor and says, "Before you oh Lord, I am nothing."

    The Rabbi nudges the Cantor and says, "Look who thinks he's nothing!"
  • Robin Pannenberg
    4

    I'll change consciousness into "organic functionality", if that would make more sense.
    "Death matter" (If we want to call it like this), like metal or plastic, would be not excluded, because they have no direct "organic functionality" like a circulatory system, nerves, organs, cells or anything that indicates life, but are, for sure, still existing.
    PS: Thx for the help in making this definition better :D
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.