Is this good thought for a beginner at philosophy?

Question

Something must've come from nothing, but how can nothing turn into something without something first existing? But how can anything just exist without first being formed into existence? Could it be that nothing is something, but if that is the case how could nothing always exist if something cannot always exist? What is nothing exactly? How did nothing come into existence? Is nothing considered to be existence? Can nothing really exist? How can nothing really be if it is considered not to exist? How can nothing exist it is nothing? If it does exist it means that nothing is really something, and that something always existed, but how can something just exist? How can something exist when there is nothing?
I have just read the first 2 chapters of Sophie's world and just had to put my thoughts on paper and wanted to know what others may think about them am I doing good for a beginner of philosophy? Is there even a such thing as doing good in philosophy?

Answer 1

Yes you're definitely on a philosophical quest. You show the philosophical mind bend. The kind of questions you are asking (concerning being and nothingness) are those that interest a particular branch of philosophy known as metaphysics. If you wish to read more on philosophy, your inquiries suggest to me you might be interested in the presocratic philosophers (Zeno, Heraclitus and Parmenides particularly come to mind)
You might also like the works of Heidegger, but he's a very difficult author and I wouldn't recommend it to a beginner.

Answer 2

not bad for a starter.
for the real scoop on nothing read jean paul sartre being and nothingness.

nothing is not something. nothing isn't. it is the negation of something. nothing is not a state in itself, it is rather a lacking of a positive state of being.

for example, let us say you were going to meet someone at a cafe for lunch. That person does not show up on time. you get anxious and start looking for her. she is NOT there. All of who she is becomes captured in you looking for her and the lack of her is so heavy upon you, that when she does arrive, when she IS, that you feel relieved. Her lack of being there is the nothing, the not-being, her negation. It is your missing her that is the experience of her negation, her nothingness. You experience the nothing by missing.

Another example is missing a train. You experience the NOT catching the train. You missed the train and are left with the nothing of catching the train.

Ironic that in experiencing the nothing, the entirety of its being is revealed. or is it ironic? more like negative space in art. Seeing things by their absence.
so, aside from the semantic word-play, nothing isn't and can't "be". nothingness is the not being, nothing is the lacking...

you know the signs, like no smoking, with the cigarette and the circle withthe line thru it? instead of the cigarette, put Isness (or being, or to be)... then with the circle withthe line thru it... that is symbolically equal to nothing.

Nothing does not exist. There is no such thing as nothing. nothing cannot really be. existence is a standing out from nothing. existence is an overcoming. exist comes from ek-stasis. ek meaning not, stasis meaning still, static, the same, the background. in Greek, ek-stasis is the one word for both exist and ecstasy. It is an over-coming from the background to the foreground in the framework of our human condition. It is a transcendence, but then we fall back again and not-be, or we become not, we are negated, we become nothing, we (are) (parenthesis mean the little circle with the line thru it).

so this nothing, this non-thingness, and your experience of it is far more compelling and revealing and makes for greater understanding than if this nothing were a something in which you could muster up and place within a jar for show and tell. eh?

The Metaphysics of Nothingness by Heidegger also has a nice explanation of nothingness.

keep up the good thinking!!

Answer 3

Are you asking these questions presuming that they can be answered, or are you asking the questions to understand how to ask? read the Meno. if you are easily surrounded by the swarm of philosophical questions that have buzzed at you from your novel, remember that to answer such questions can be essentially simple: color is that which follows shape, or nothing relatively is that which is not any thing. what philosophy demands of you is actual comprehension of what your questioning implies. are you asking these questions about nothing and everything genuinely, or are you wondering at the capacity to understand such ideas? If you actually want to understand "nothing" and "everything" or existance and nonexistance, study modern physics! if what you are interested in is the reflective value of questioning, walk the straight and narrow path of philosophy. and yes there is such a thing as "doing good in philosophy" and that is to be completely honest with yourself in recognizing your own comprehension: never pretend to 'see the light' that these thinkers may be shedding on your mind. to seek simple answers in a descriptive sense is short sighted. you might consider finding joy in the "why" of your questioning.

take care

Answer 4

You are showing deep thought, which is good for philosophy. You can do good in your course work in reciting dates and people and knowing what each philosopher wrote about. However, when you write, the instructor generally wants original ideas and to hear your perspective on a topic, so as long as your honest you are doing well. Hope this helps.

Answer 5

You are asking the one question that no one has ever answered.

Ever.

That includes all the religions, philosophies, sciences, etc.

It may be that this question is beyond the capabilities of humans to even properly answer. Or it may be that the question is actually nonsense, although it seems sensible to us. A lot of good minds have dealt with this one. Good luck. And don't get a headache thinking about it.

Answer 6

That's a good question.
Nothing is always something. The very idea of nothing had to be thought up. Think about it numerically. nothing=0. The absence of something. To put it in a historic perspective, think about roman numerals. There is no 0 in it. Think about how difficult math would be without being able to use a 0, it's almost impossible. The idea of nothing itself does lead to something. You could go on and on about it. Many believe god is equal to 0, that god only exists because we recognize an absence, that it is only in not seeing god that we know god exists...That's another story though...But you are well on your way in philosophy, hope you don't go crazed, and keep level please...

Answer 7

Your gonna love sophie's world. Its been years since I've read it myself, but I'm pretty sure you'll come across Hegel's dialectics there, where in a manner of speaking something came from nothing. Well that's not exactly accurate, but its about how everything gives birth to its opposite.

By the way, who are you? Why are you here?

Edit:
Oh, BTW, beware the sophists. And read plato's "Apology".

Answer 8

As you enter into precepts and concepts
it is best done with one base understanding
you are an entity involved in a precept or concept----
this variable alone is enough to tilt ACTUALS into all kinds of bastardized behaviors---so---be aware as you are attempting to become aware that you are preceiving and not conceiving !!!!!

Answer 9

The problem lies in your very first statement: "Something must've come from nothing"

You are trying to argue from the premise. Try again.

Answer 10

Your well on your way to being a philosopher. Keep asking yourself the hard questions.