Nothing is actually a thing in itself, thereby making the concept itself a paradox.
It's a lack of anything and everything, but it's a thing. So it's not really a lack of all things.
What are your thoughts on the matter?
2007-02-28 15:36:30 · 9 answers · asked by Z, unnecessary letter 5 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
"Nothing" is conceivable as a property of objects.
All you have to do is define an object in time and space and then relate the space-points in between the object to another. Where there are no objects at any coordinate, you have "nothing"-- but "nothing" doesn't exist without objects.
2007-02-28 17:03:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is not actually a paradox. The concept of nothing is an idea that allows us the ability to concieve of the state of nothingness, it is not however nothing itself.
If it were nothing itself then yes it would be a paradox but since it is the concept of nothing that is at issue then the concept is something and therefore able to exist.
Hope this helps.
2007-02-28 23:50:27 · answer #2 · answered by Arthur N 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Like the number 0, non?
it describes the amount of...well...nothing.
However, zero is just a name to identify that lack of. Just like dark is lack of light, black is the lack of ALL colour.
I think, in the same way, nothing is the lack of something, but it's only a name...and after all, what's in a name?
2007-03-01 00:03:04 · answer #3 · answered by k 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Diamond Sutra explores this non-Aristotelian logic with the format:
A is not A, therefore it is A
The impression I get from Buddhism is the paradox is resolved by Being; by Suchness. Although I don't know, I haven't become Enlightened ;).
2007-02-28 23:50:57 · answer #4 · answered by neuralzen 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
you have identified the rampant human need to segment and label... to create things... these segments.. these lines we draw are arbitrary and these objects and all objects including ourselves do not exist outside of the human mind.
segmenting and labeling.. creating objects or units is a prequisite to logical thought.. so it is usefull... but also insanely limiting.
the more lines you can blur and the farther you can step outside of being human the closer you can get to the truth.
semantics games and other retardations that make me ashamed of philososhy do not play a role at that point.
2007-03-01 00:42:49 · answer #5 · answered by causalitist 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it is a description of the absence of anything... thereby it has a definitive purpose which is to describe what isn't there (or the absence of anything). for this reason, it has a value.... and thus it is actually a thing...
2007-03-01 00:34:59 · answer #6 · answered by VeRDuGo 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nothing means NO THING. Therefore it is not a thing. It's not even a paradox.
2007-02-28 23:54:23 · answer #7 · answered by Amy Beware 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is as you say, to define the word nothing is to try to define a paradox. all you would accomplish is to confuse yourself.
2007-02-28 23:51:20 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
WOW i have like no idea what u said! lol. it was like confusing but not all at once!!! i have no idea....
2007-03-01 14:15:57 · answer #9 · answered by ♥Tyson Ritter♥ 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋