Is something better than nothing or Is nothing better than something when something is anything.?

Answer 1

I see you are stretching those noodles, but don't start frying 'em just yet - It ain't quite lunchtime! Besides, I can still see a few kinks, twists and twirls in the noodles that you must take out first; otherwise it ain't gonna come out pretty when finally fried. Let me start by asking you this: Are you gonna serve them with your average "Logical" soy sauce, or have you prepared a Special Hot Sauce Mix? Remember, Hot Sauce is usually much more delicious, but it tends to burn on both ends sometimes, not to mention, it makes it easier to overeat! … Okay, enough of talking the talk, let's see if we can walk the walk a little. First of all, “nothing”, as most people might refer to it, is a part (an extension, a property, a measure, a condition) of something (anything, being). In other words, it is held in the mirror of being and as such it is essentially a Logical means of comparison and subject to a vast array of comparative psychological and spiritual interpretations (e.g. what’s nothing to them may mean something or even everything to you. Or what appears worse to them may look “better” to you). That’s the nothing that everyone’s trying to explain to you here. That’s NOT, however, the Nothing that I’m talking about. It is extremely counterintuitive (and at times downright incongruous and paradoxical) for us human (beings) to consider Nothing (and by Nothing, again I don’t mean those shoddy Transcendental Meditation maneuverings of emptying your mind, imagining the Shinning Void, and the rest of the commercially profitable hogwash techniques). What I mean by “Nothing”, on the other hand, can perhaps be best “approximated” by introducing yet another essentially ambiguous term – “absolute”. To illustrate the point, let’s consider the following “trivial” gedunken (i.e. thought) experiment: Imagine you have a small container with a perfect vacuum inside (and I mean perfect indeed, so perfect in fact that you not only have nothing Real inside, but you have even managed to eliminate, if such a state is even possible, all virtual particles, ground states and boundary condition fluctuation effects). What do you have inside the container then? What you have is STILL a relative nothing! Why? Because, it is simply contained in something – its very existence, so to speak, depends on the a priori condition and “being there” of the containing container. Now, and to address your question, is that “relative nothing” any “better” than having something (anything, say “air” for instance) in the container? The answer might depend on whether Shrödinger’s cat might still prefer to breathe, or if she is finally tired of her precarious quantum mechanical reality! :-) … The meaning of “Absolute Nothing”, on the other hand, is more in line with the spirit of Heidegger’s ultimate metaphysical question of: “Why are there essents, why is there anything at all, rather than Nothing?”. And in that sense, at least, I am sorry to be Wittgenstein’s advocate and say that your question is quite ill formed at best. However, there is no need for despair my dear, since I would NOT have been able to satisfactorily answer your question (at least not within the limited boundaries of the Y!A forum) anyway, even if it weren’t ill formed! … So, you see, we can celebrate our blissful mutual ignorance together; though, preferably in that paradisiacal and fruit-filled garden of yours. :-) :-)

Answer 2

Neither.
The saying is dependent on what "anything" is.
something is better than nothing wouldn't apply to cancer.
nothing is better than something wouldn't apply to money.

Answer 3

if anything is better than nothing, then
something is better than nothing (since something is anything).

Answer 4

sheesh thanks for the confusion....something is always better then nothing...like a lil smile is better then no smile even a penny is something better then nothing....

Answer 5

depends on the situation

Answer 6

You need more booze.