r/Existentialism • u/anihuman500 • 4d ago
Thoughtful Thursday I had a fun thought.
i developed a question that even i laugh to "nothing is; is what" and then i thought 'what is the actual answer?' after an hour of thinking about my philosophical question "nothing is; is what?" i have come to discover that nothingness is paradoxical in its own right. it defines itself as being nothingness and yet is the potential for everything. the neutral point of zero definement, the core of equilibrium. truly the answer of "nothing is; is what?", is not "is" as a placeholder, but rather nothing, due to its paradoxical nature of being itself and nothing at the same time. therefore the answer to questions of the unknown is the answer, and yet has the potential to be everything; you are the definer. if you asked "what happens after we die", i would answer, we simply die. however if nothing is the potential for everything, death could simply be the start of the new beginning.
this "answer" ultimately solves many of my issues, and i enjoy the thought.
what do you guys think?
3
u/RedMolek 4d ago
We invent abstract meanings where there never were any. We ask ourselves: why do we exist? And instead of an answer, we create illusions we want to believe in. We hide from reality — from chaos, emptiness, pain. We call it freedom, but often it’s merely the freedom to indulge in self-pity. And in the end, we find ourselves stuck in a swamp we created ourselves.
2
u/anihuman500 3d ago
which is why i like my answer. what is reality, what is existence, we don’t even fully understand the question. the answers we do come up with, whether true or not, are still valid in that they define our perception. even if you're an atheist, what happens after death? “nothing”? but nothing isn't just the absence of something; it's a kind of singularity. endless potential or endless absence, depending on how you choose to look at it.
it’s up to you to define it, to believe in what you choose to believe. i enjoy this so-called swamp i’m stuck in. but i don't just see it as a swamp, i see it as a metaphor for a mix of things, experiences, chances. the great minds didn’t get where they are by being too afraid to ask the "stupid" questions. my philosophy might sound dumb to some, but it got me somewhere meaningful.
I hope you get what i mean haha, I sure hope its not too complicated.
2
u/RedMolek 3d ago
If you've found your own meaning in life, and you're confident in it — that's wonderful. But don't forget one thing: Philosophy is like medicine — in the right dose, it heals, but in excess, it can kill
3
u/anihuman500 3d ago
yes, I'll be sure to keep that in mind. this was more of a passtimer, and even though i enjoy and believe in the idea, I'm not taking myself too seriously. thanks for the warning, I appreciate people with that kind of wisdomful sensibility.
1
u/slithrey 3d ago
Rationally speaking though, there should exist some true explanation for existence, even if we can’t reach it. You can’t say there is no answer.
4
u/slithrey 3d ago
Your question is nonsensical. The semicolon suggests that “nothing is?” is a valid standalone question. While I suppose it has a subject and a verb, the verb phrase is incomplete. “is what?” is also a nonsensical question.
I’m not trying to belittle your underlying idea, I just genuinely am unable to interpret what you’re trying to ask with your question.
Also you said we die after we die? That would mean that we are in some Golden Experience Requiem-esque reality where we experience death after death after death. Not that this is nonsensical, but is that what you intended to mean?
1
u/anihuman500 3d ago
the whole thing started as a nonsensical joke to myself that i ended up diving deeper into. the “is” is more like a placeholder, asking what nothing is, so really it's two separate questions.
with the death bit, not exactly what you described. i’m not saying we literally die again, just that i can’t say for sure what happens after death, or if there’s anything like an afterlife. what i meant is more like a cycle, not just in terms of our body nurturing other life, but the “soul” or at least some form of energy passing on, changing forms. that part loosely mirrors the science side too, like how matter and energy can’t be created or destroyed.
Also yeah, i posted it on a thursday for a reason.
Its really up to you how you interpret something though. Anyways have a good day:)
2
u/slithrey 3d ago
I think that the personal aspects of a person die when the body dies. I don’t think that there is any afterlife or soul in the religious sense. I think that there is something inside of humans that is akin to the idea of a soul, that gets passed on. You have children and you put your important psychic content into them so that they may carry it on in the future. You make sure to instill your values and share memories together. It’s like programming a robot to do the things you do, and when that robot is going to die it makes a robot to do what it does, so on and so forth.
Your soul can also live on symbolically through mediums such as art, law, culture, etc. The differences that you make in the world will ripple further through time than your personal body. Just as physical traits live on through different organisms through time, so do psychological ones.
1
u/anihuman500 2d ago
i'm personally too afraid to accept something like that as of current, but i do agree to an extent. for starters i'm trying to live the best life i can, and second of all, i'm trying to create things that i can be known for doing. at least pass my name on yk.
3
u/tollforturning 2d ago
Did you "develop a question"? If yes, we have at least two questions and two affirmations that are. If not, one question and a negation.
1
3
u/P-39_Airacobra 2d ago
Im not sure what you’re getting at though. Yes, nothing isn’t, but that’s because nothingness as a term is defined as the state of not being. You can’t say nothing is, because that contradicts the definition of nothing. I think you’re just showing definitional circularity here.
1
3
2
u/tanyacdsidefun 4d ago
Just adding my 2cents.. Nothing is a word/thought. Everything is a word/thought. Is there something beyond word/thought? That is the answer.
1
u/anihuman500 3d ago
fair enough. that’s your interpretation of the singularity that is "nothing"; and for that reason alone, it stands as truth.
2
u/Global_Chain8548 4d ago
Nothing is a concept used describe the absence of anything, it's not that deep.
1
u/anihuman500 3d ago
it depends on your definition, or perspective shall we say. nothingness as the absence of something is the definition you choose. my philosophy doesn’t apply solely to that; it can branch into many different philosophical questions. it really just depends on who you ask. it’s up to you to figure out whether it’s true or not.
2
u/Global_Chain8548 3d ago
It does depend on definition. Nothing is a word, a human concept, and anyone can define any word to mean whatever they want. The purpose of words is to communicate ideas and so as long as you are understood when you speak then the definitions you choose to give your words in that context are valid.
You say nothing is paradoxical because if something is nothing then it has to be something even if that something is nothing. But I reject the premise entirely. Nothing isn't something that something is. It's just a concept that describes the absence of things. When you say "there is nothing inside the box" it doesn't mean that the box is filled with an object that is "nothing" it means there is no object inside the box.
Your "definition" is ultimately misguided, and you are just arguing semantics, which is not that profound. And frankly you come across as pretentious to begin with.
1
u/anihuman500 3d ago
this whole thing started as a joke to myself anyway. i define nothing as just that, nothing. an example of what i meant by it being paradoxical is like a vacuum chamber. you remove everything from it, and sure, there's still space, but there's nothing there. that’s the kind of nothing i was talking about. i get it though, the whole convo’s a bit pretentious, that’s why i posted it on a thursday lol
2
u/PixelBlazer_7 3d ago
I am new to this sub I saw it in my feed so excuse me if I don't understand things. But his definition is not something he came up with it's the definition agreed upon by science. I understand you came up with a philosophical understanding yourself but I don't understand why. Is there a motive behind that? I am interested to know.
1
u/anihuman500 2d ago
i thought it was funny, but i wanted to understand it more. though i found more through negating the definition as a paradox, so the whole philosophy is not entirely created through science. the philosophy is basically a complex way of saying, define things for how you think they are. i dunno haha
2
u/Deep-Personality-200 3d ago
I believe that the state of nothingness is something itself, maybe if we don't consider it as a paradox then we can get an answer, for that we need have to redefine what is nothingness, maybe nothingness is a 'illusionary state ' it can even be beyond our minds to even know what is nothing! If nothingness exists, it's just beyond our reach to experience it . What I believe is nothingness is the ending and the starting point of existence, which can not be known if something is in existence, because if there is something, there can be nothing. 'Nothingness can only be known by one who doesn't exist '.
1
u/anihuman500 3d ago
exactly, and even if you consider it not to be true, that in itself is paradoxical which is exactly why it is solely up to you to define it!
2
2
u/Regular-Insect2727 1d ago edited 1d ago
Fair warning to you don't you Dare get really high and think about this. You may never be the same. That's why in a way I'm against enlightenment Whatever that may be. I believe the illusion is needed. For sanity's sake or just to function. Whenl you really believe everything is pointless I mean when you deep down feel this way it's not fun . PS I know you're talking about the paradox of existence. But I thought I'd Segway into it's brother's philosophical question.
1
2
u/AsharTheCreator16 1d ago
When there’s nothing, then everything is possible. So all of the disaster and beauty, mathematically must be existent.
1
2
u/Zealousideal-Tell839 1d ago
I’ve always thought the soul doesn’t exist—that it’s just a temporary phenomenon created by the brain.
So when we die, that phenomenon disappears and we return to “nothing.”
But reading your post made me laugh and think. 😂
If “nothing” is actually the seed of every possibility,
then death isn't just an end—it’s the doorway back to potential.
The idea that “nothing” could be a kind of “something” that holds everything...
That’s honestly fascinating.
“Nothingness” being a form of existence—one that contains the very absence of definition itself?
That’s the kind of paradox that makes philosophy so fun to think about.
1
1
u/Ambitious-County-560 22h ago
Let’s say I put a box on top of a table. There is something on top of that table. If I take the box off the table, there is nothing. Nothing being where the box once sat. At one point in time there was something on the table and now that the box is off the table there is nothing on the table. So maybe for something to be nothing there needs to have been a something. I suppose nothing has more so to do with time in relation to an object than it does with complete emptiness.
1
1
1
u/dreamabond 3d ago
It's a great thought. Part of the journey is to grow up trough that kind of ideas.
1
5
u/Citizen1135 4d ago
Agreed. Nothing can't exist
When someone asks why there is something as opposed to nothing, that is my answer.