What could be the consequences if these statements proved?

Question

1. Unity is indiscernible if no difference is between unity and nothingness.

2. Unity is discernible only through the differences between unity and nothingness.

3. Unity is discernible only as "part, whole, equivalence, uniqueness, limit, link, influence, sensation, origin, derivative, rule, condition, intent, and fulfillment" through the differences between unity and nothingness. (Tabulate the differences between unity & nothingness, if you do not have!)

Answer 1

Consequences are these sentences are true.

Answer 2

Thank you for writing something in comprehensive way.

Nothingness is being identity less, so it has nothing to do with unity.
Actually you are confused with dimensionlessness and zero dimension. Zero dimension is a dimension by itself with its clear location, origin and identity. But dimensionlessness is being away from some kind of origin or set of dimensions, under consideration or comprehensive to us.
The ultimate reality, the God, is dimensionless and timeless, it does not mean that has no dimensions or time frame or set of dimensions, but He has the origin entirely different from all the creatures, that is beyond our perception and imagination. That cannot be said as nothingness, but something absolutely real and we are so incomplete that we cannot reach to the level of His existence. That's why we call Him the Unique.
If nothingness is the unity, is means there is no God, that is not true.

So all above statements are untrue. Sorry to say.

Answer 3

I belive there is a dialogue of Plato which goes over this, and Socrotes continues to 'prove' many very hilarious and impossible consequences, which essentially makes clear that (As is typical in that linguist/philosopher socrates) even abstract concept that only exist, indeed, by their definition...may be very difficult to in fact properly define.

The real issue lies in our human instinct to misunderstand mathematical properties as a collection of 'nouns' This arrives always at a contradiction. This is the essential difference between so-called 'naive' set theory (finially proven inconsistent only a couple of generations ago) and modern set theory. A property is in fact only a verb. Nothing is independant of its property. So if you assume first, that there is a thing...and this thing has the property of being one....you are already assuming more about this 'thing' than was offered in the definition, although this is very easy to overlook (and very difficult to explain why in an understandible manner)

Unity is ONLY property. It is not a thing with this property.

Answer 4

These statements would prove to have purpose if they are consequential.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sp/osmorali.htm

Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences
Part III: The Philosophy of Spirit
SECTION TWO: OBJECTIVE SPIRIT

B. MORALITY

"§ 503

The free individual, who, in mere law, counts only as a person, is now characterised as a subject — a will reflected into itself so that, be its affection what it may, it is distinguished (as existing in it) as its own from the existence of freedom in an external thing. Because the affection of the will is thus inwardised, the will is at the same time made a particular, and there arise further particularisations of it and relations of these to one another. This affection is partly the essential and implicit will, the reason of the will, the essential basis of law and moral life: partly it is the existent volition, which is before us and throws itself into actual deeds, and thus comes into relationship with the former. The subjective will is morally free, so far as these features are its inward institution, its own, and willed by it. Its utterance in deed with this freedom is an action, in the externality of which it only admits as its own, and allows to be imputed to it, so much as it has consciously willed."



"(a) PURPOSE
§ 504

So far as the action comes into immediate touch with existence, my part in it is to this extent formal, that external existence is also independent of the agent. This externally can pervert his action and bring to light something else than lay in it. Now, though any alteration as such, which is set on foot by the subjects' action, is its deed, still the subject does not for that reason recognise it as its action, but only admits as its own that existence in the deed which lay in its knowledge and will, which was its purpose. Only for that does it hold itself responsible."

Answer 5

the consequence is is the obssession and you defintely will end up unified(lonely) .....there is absolutely no such thing as nothingness so therefore that part of the spectrum is nonexistant and irrelavent to our entire human existance...

Answer 6

Unity is not nothingness.

love and blessings Don

Answer 7

First learn English ... then I'll be glad to answer.

No insult intended, I am sure you are very nice.

Jonnie

Answer 8

OMG, go away

You asked this yesterday

Answer 9

ah..........why are you obcessed with thest queations?

I get dizzy reading them