Philosophy Now Forum

The totality is without compare for if it had comparison it would not be the totality, i.e. something would be beyond it. Thingness requires comparison otherwise it is not a thing as there is no distinction which allows the thing to be. The totality is without compare thus it is nothing. Nothing is without comparison, as there is nothing to compare, thus nothingness is the totality as there is no distinction within nothing that separates it from the totality, distinction requires separation and there is no distinction within nothing.

A good argument. I know now why Albert Einstein left for his heavenly abode! Deus Magnus Est. I'm coming Einstein, I'm coming!! I know ya said some bad stuff about Chinese peeps - them being lazy or something like that - but you were old, senility sets in fast and furious past 46!!

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 9:20 am

A good argument.

I have to agree, it is an excellent argument; its only flaw being its utter stupidity.

A rose seems completely different and separate from garbage or from a thorny branch. Nevertheless, that which now we call ‘rose’ was in fact a thorny branch fifteen days ago and in another fifteen days, it will be garbage. A rose even seems separate from water, from the earth, from the clouds and from the sun, and yet it is literally made of the nourishment absorbed from the earth, the water sprinkled from the clouds and the light of the sun, which warms it. ‘Rose’, ‘branch’, ‘garbage’, ‘water’, ‘earth’, ‘cloud’, ‘sun’ are only different names assigned time and again to one, indivisible process that we call ‘universe’, where no particular form can be isolated from the Whole (Totality) just as in a river no single eddy can be separated from the current’s overall motion.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 11:45 am just as in a river no single eddy can be separated from the current’s overall motion.

They say you can't step into the same river twice, but I have found that once is usually more than enough, anyway.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 7:26 pm The totality is without compare for if it had comparison it would not be the totality, i.e. something would be beyond it. Thingness requires comparison otherwise it is not a thing as there is no distinction which allows the thing to be. The totality is without compare thus it is nothing. Nothing is without comparison, as there is nothing to compare, thus nothingness is the totality as there is no distinction within nothing that separates it from the totality, distinction requires separation and there is no distinction within nothing.

Thingness doesn’t require a comparison. A thing can be a thing without any comparison to any thing else. A thing is some thing that can be represented by an English noun.

Your first mistake is that you should have claimed that the totality is every thing. Each of those things is a thing in itself, without need for any comparison.

After starting out on the wrong foot, all that follows is without meaning.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 7:26 pm The totality is without compare for if it had comparison it would not be the totality, i.e. something would be beyond it. Thingness requires comparison otherwise it is not a thing as there is no distinction which allows the thing to be. The totality is without compare thus it is nothing. Nothing is without comparison, as there is nothing to compare, thus nothingness is the totality as there is no distinction within nothing that separates it from the totality, distinction requires separation and there is no distinction within nothing.

This is tongue in cheek, right, Mr. Sokal?

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 10:02 am

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 9:20 am

A good argument.

I have to agree, it is an excellent argument; its only flaw being its utter stupidity.

Cogito it's a good argument, but it depends on what existence means; plus the situation one would havta be in for the argument ta be good is real as real can be. Unfortunately/fortunately, it's a cul de sac, a blind alley, a dead end, which somehow should transport us to a time 400 years back ... in Europe.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 6:02 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 7:26 pm The totality is without compare for if it had comparison it would not be the totality, i.e. something would be beyond it. Thingness requires comparison otherwise it is not a thing as there is no distinction which allows the thing to be. The totality is without compare thus it is nothing. Nothing is without comparison, as there is nothing to compare, thus nothingness is the totality as there is no distinction within nothing that separates it from the totality, distinction requires separation and there is no distinction within nothing.

This is tongue in cheek, right, Mr. Sokal?

Good one!

It's obvious what the OP has done, but is it obvious what we havta to do? I realize it's an old, rather clichéd point s/he makes, but he does add an extension which a certain deceased Greek would approve of ... highly.

It all depends ... on specific metaphysical notions, but at critical junctures logic fails in rather interesting ways. Should we remove the points of failure from the equation? It seems possible, but then the costs, who's gonna foot the bill?

In my eyes, there seems to be a blurring of boundaries between philosophical topics/ideas, but that shouldn't surprise anyone ... we've been grappling with this issue for ages.

That's all for now. Signing off ...

Nothing is a term that represents the transcendent - ultimate lack, and as such is merely a placeholder for the ineffable. You cannot logic on it, it's merely a symbol.

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 5:41 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 7:26 pm The totality is without compare for if it had comparison it would not be the totality, i.e. something would be beyond it. Thingness requires comparison otherwise it is not a thing as there is no distinction which allows the thing to be. The totality is without compare thus it is nothing. Nothing is without comparison, as there is nothing to compare, thus nothingness is the totality as there is no distinction within nothing that separates it from the totality, distinction requires separation and there is no distinction within nothing.

Thingness doesn’t require a comparison. A thing can be a thing without any comparison to any thing else. A thing is some thing that can be represented by an English noun.

Your first mistake is that you should have claimed that the totality is every thing. Each of those things is a thing in itself, without need for any comparison.

After starting out on the wrong foot, all that follows is without meaning.

You can only see a circle because of the inner and outer space; you can only see a circle because of other forms.

You can only observe a noun because of a verb or because of the letters the word 'noun' is composed of.

You can only see a tree because of the lake behind it or the surrounding lawn.


All things are conditioned upon other things, without conditionality nothing exists.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 1:50 pm Nothing is a term that represents the transcendent - ultimate lack, and as such is merely a placeholder for the ineffable. You cannot logic on it, it's merely a symbol.

Nothing is not even a symbol as a symbol is a thing.

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 1:57 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 10:02 am

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 9:20 am

A good argument.

I have to agree, it is an excellent argument; its only flaw being its utter stupidity.

Cogito it's a good argument, but it depends on what existence means; plus the situation one would havta be in for the argument ta be good is real as real can be. Unfortunately/fortunately, it's a cul de sac, a blind alley, a dead end, which somehow should transport us to a time 400 years back ... in Europe.

And that depends on the definition of 'meaning' and we are left with an indefinite regress that leads us back to nothing.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 6:02 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 7:26 pm The totality is without compare for if it had comparison it would not be the totality, i.e. something would be beyond it. Thingness requires comparison otherwise it is not a thing as there is no distinction which allows the thing to be. The totality is without compare thus it is nothing. Nothing is without comparison, as there is nothing to compare, thus nothingness is the totality as there is no distinction within nothing that separates it from the totality, distinction requires separation and there is no distinction within nothing.

This is tongue in cheek, right, Mr. Sokal?

Is it absurd? Yes. Does it make it any less true? No.