Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Nothing is something

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Since I began studying objectivism, I have faced numerous problems in explaining to myself concept that seem to 'make sense'. However, maybe these are just feelings just as a socialist feels he is right about socialism. So I'm going to pose a few questions which will help me understand a few things.

Firstly, someone wants told me "nothing is something" is an axiom. I never understand it, how can nothing be somthing? It has to be wrong but I coulden't prove it to him or explain it. It just feels/sounds abit contradictory.

I'm currently on page 700 of "Atlas Shrugged" and have ready also "Philosophy: Why you need it". I read through it, and most of it seems to appeal to something in me. Although I'm not yet able to articulate and prove it. Any suggestions, so I can defend myself from the people who constantly attack what I value, and maybe even begin to understand objectively and with words what it is I value(p.s hope I'm making sense)/.

Edited by airborne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, someone wants told me "nothing is something" is an axiom. I never understand it, how can nothing be somthing? It has to be wrong but I coulden't prove it to him or explain it. It just feels/sounds abit contradictory.

It IS contradictory. And it's not an axiom.

I'm currently on page 700 of "Atlas Shrugged" and have ready also "Philosophy: Why you need it". I read through it, and most of it seems to appeal to something in me. Although I'm not yet able to articulate and prove it. Any suggestions, so I can defend myself from the people who constantly attack what I value, and maybe even begin to understand objectively and with words what it is I value(p.s hope I'm making sense)/.

Finish reading AS, then read The Fountainhead, Anthem, and We the Living. Then read The Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, The Romantic Manifesto, For the New Intellectual (largely for the title essay) and then Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff. It doesn't hurt to visit http://www.aynrand.org, either, because they have a lot of materials you can read. If you really work at understanding the material, you should be able to at least begin organizing and defending your ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you really work at understanding the material, you should be able to at least begin organizing and defending your ideas.
I agree. In the meanwhile, don't defend Objectivism. Instead, defend anything you really understand to be true, and ask your friends for reasons for their viewpoints so that you can figure out if you're missing something.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, someone wants told me "nothing is something" is an axiom. I never understand it, how can nothing be somthing? It has to be wrong but I coulden't prove it to him or explain it. It just feels/sounds abit contradictory.

Three things:

First: You are not obliged to provide a detailed account of why every little idea that someone happens to utter for some reason is right or wrong. It is not the case that you cannot hold an idea as true or false merely because you cannot convince another of its truth or falsity. It only counts that you prove it - by an objective means - to yourself and to your own satisfaction. Your obligation is to ensure that the contents of your own mind are validated by a process of reason, and it is not at all your responsibility to do the same for others. It is not proper to cast doubt upon your own conclusions merely because someone disagrees with you and you find yourself unable to change that person's mind. Instead, it is only proper to doubt your conclusions upon becoming aware of reasonable grounds for believing there may be contradictions in your thought processes. If you can't change someone's mind and you can't see any errors in your own thinking, then just agree to disagree, as the saying goes. If that someone thinks you're off with the fairies then that's their problem, not yours.

Second: Your suspicions are correct. Nothing is not a something - it is the absence of any possible something whatever. Your interlocutor is committing (amongst other things) a fallacy that Ayn Rand called "the Reification of the Zero." This is a difficult thing to comprehend, and what you've read so far is nowhere near enough to help you figure it out. At this stage of your study of Objectivism you are best leaving aside the issue altogether for the moment as you wont be able to get your head around it properly until you are in a position to comprehend Objectivist epistemology. I am a bit chary of giving you even this much as it would be a mistake for you to go running back to your interlocutor and repeating that phrase without you having a clue what it means or how to validate it as being a fallacy. I am just telling you it so that you know there is an answer, which will help assuage you about the advice in my first paragraph.

Third: As to study of Objectivism generally, finish Atlas first, then read The Fountainhead, then finish PWNI, and then follow the rest of the reading list suggested by the good folks at the Ayn Rand Institute. On the basis of your readings and your thoughts about what you've read so far, feel free to ask any questions you like here. (Addendum: and yes, use the search facility first. I keep forgetting about that :lol: )

With that, welcome to the forum and best premises on your study of Objectivism!

JJM

Edited by John McVey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Airborne, I know the position you're coming from. I shifted through a lot of dodgy philosophies before Objectivism, and I found it hard to accept that the axioms could be true - not because they didn't make sense, but because I was expecting at any minute to find some perfect refutation of them.

The thing is, they can't really be debated - there was a whole thread dedicated to this recently. You'll just need to read up on the axioms for yourself, and keep strict, rigid rational mind. Don't accept anything in Objectivism because it 'seems right', otherwise you'll cause confusion and weakness in argument later on. Accept a tenant only when you really do understand it and can integrate it.

Now, nothing cannot 'exist' because the very definition of 'nothing' is the absence of 'something'. Nothing isn't simply a very empty space, it is literally, in every concievable format, the lack of anything whatsoever. It is therefore impossible for it to exist - it's just a concept we use in opposition to 'something'.

In other words, outer space isn't full of 'nothing'. It's often said that space is a vacuum, and for all intents and purposes, it is. However, it is not a 'perfect vacuum', because such a thing is physically impossible.

Feel free to ask questions if you're genuinely confused, but try the search function too. I've found it an very valuable source in finding old threads that discuss issues similar to the ones I've held (most of them are usually in this sub-forum). The search function isn't all that great though, as a tool for searching, and if you know how to use Google's ability to search within a site, I suggest you use that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Come now, listen, and convey my story. I shall tell you what paths of inquiry alone there are for thinking:

The one: that it is and it is impossible for it not to be. This is the path of Persuasion, for it accompanies Objective Truth.

The other: that it is not and it necessarily must not be. That, I point out to you, is a path wholly unthinkable, for neither could you know what-is-not (for that is impossible), nor could you point it out.

...

The same thing is there for thinking of and for being."

Whether "nothing" can exist or not is an old, old, question. The quote above is a fragment (well, a pair of fragments) from Parmenides, a pre-socratic philosopher. It's still convincing, a couple millenia later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, someone wants told me "nothing is something" is an axiom. I never understand it, how can nothing be somthing? It has to be wrong but I coulden't prove it to him or explain it. It just feels/sounds abit contradictory.

What is it that you mean by -nothing-? Surely not the number zero which is something. Among other things it is the identity operator for addition and it is the cardinality of the empty set.

The empty set which it has nothing in it (i.e. it has not elements as members) is a set and is the identity operator for union in a boolean algebra. It is also the intersection of a pair of disjoint sets. So that nothing is something.

The closest thing I can come to -nothing- is the contents of the empty set which is something.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, someone wants told me "nothing is something" is an axiom. I never understand it, how can nothing be somthing? It has to be wrong but I coulden't prove it to him or explain it. It just feels/sounds abit contradictory.

Many people believe in fantasies. They fantasize about "nothing," and sooner or later they start to believe that it actually exists. When confronted by someone who believes that "nothing is something," I suggest agreeing with him. Say: "I agree. It's a figment of your imagination."

Then it will be up to him to prove that "nothing" is not a figment of his imagination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...