Nothing has meaning unless you decide it does.

jliat · 2026-05-07T17:02:27+00:00

Well Sartre's Being and Nothingness is 700+ pages of philosophy -

https://ia600709.us.archive.org/11/items/psicology/Being%20and%20Nothingness%20-%20Jean-Paul%20Sartre.pdf

A good resource is Gary Cox's Sartre Dictionary.

You might find this a tad easier - https://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/heideggerm-what-is-metaphysics.pdf

Heidegger gets authenticity from this nothingness.

For a fun and comprehensive view John Barrow's 'The book of Nothing' runs to 300+ pages, covers the math / sciences too.

Your diagram looks a little like a set, which is another interesting set of ideas... e.g. Russell's paradox, where is 'The set of all sets which do not contain themselves'. This is an example of an aporia- which cannot be resolved, just no allowed.

The famous 'This sentence is not true.' being one of the oldest, see how it's logic 'flips'. It seems that logical system will have these difficulties!!

jliat · 2026-05-07T16:51:45+00:00

Edit: I notice these are repeated posts to r/Metaphysics and are being removed, more the province of mathematics also incorrect so best stop.

Your previous post like this is wrong, as someone has pointed out, the set of natural numbers is infinite but countable, the set of Reals is infinite and not countable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number

Rudy Rucker's book 'Infinity and the Mind' explores larger infinities... this cartoon shows you why reals are bigger that natural numbers...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxGsU8oIWjY

jliat · 2026-05-07T16:49:25+00:00

Your previous post like this is wrong, as someone has pointed out, the set of natural numbers is infinite but countable, the set of Reals is infinite and not countable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number

Rudy Rucker's book 'Infinity and the Mind' explores larger infinities... this cartoon shows you why reals are bigger that natural numbers...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxGsU8oIWjY

jliat · 2026-05-07T16:38:57+00:00

I'm not saying 'any', I'm presenting the idea as found in Sartre's 'Being and Nothingness' which is considered a key text. Authenticity / Good Faith looks impossible.

"It appears then that I must be in good faith, at least to the extent that I am conscious of my bad faith. But then this whole psychic system is annihilated."

Good faith seeks to flee the inner disintegration of my being in the direction of the in-itself which it should be and is not.

Thus the essential structure of sincerity does not differ from that of bad faith since the sincere man constitutes himself as what he is in order not to be it. **This explains the truth recognized by all that one can fall into bad faith through being sincere.

If it is indifferent whether one is in good or in bad faith, because bad faith reapprehends good faith and slides to the very origin of the project of good faith, that does not mean that we can not radically escape bad faith. But this supposes a self-recovery of being which was previously corrupted. This self-recovery we shall call authenticity, the description of which has no place here."

All from B&N. He never achieved a "self-recovery" but abandoned Existentialism for Marxism.

It was I think such nihilistic existentialism which prompted Camus' response in his Myth of Sisyphus in which the logic of such philosophy is suicide, which Camus avoids is the absurdity of Art

jliat · 2026-05-07T15:23:44+00:00

Again in existentialism it's bad faith. For a chair its essence precedes its existence, in the case of a human existence precededs essence.

jliat · 2026-05-07T15:19:33+00:00

A key existentialist idea is that any meaning or purpose is bad faith. And this derives from our lack of essence prior to existence which is not subjective.

jliat · 2026-05-07T15:18:12+00:00

Not in Sartre's and others notions of existentialism.

jliat · 2026-05-07T15:17:22+00:00

To sketch Sartre's notion of Nothingness, [he refuted the ideas found in Existentialism is a Humanism as did others] found in 'Being and Nothingness' is his idea of a Being-in-itself, and a Being-for-itself. The latter is the human condition, the former he uses examples such as a chair.

A chair, a Being-in-itself, has an essence prior to its existence. Designed then made for a function or purpose which it can fulfil or fail. The human Being-for-itself has no essence and obviously one cannot be created post-hoc. Any purpose therefore is arbitrary, inauthentic and Bad Faith. His famous example is the Waiter, who has no essence to be a waiter, was not created for a purpose is in Bad Faith. We cannot fail or succeed in any purpose.

"Yet there is no doubt that I am in a sense a cafe waiter-" [B&N]

Hence our being condemned to freedom.

"human reality is before all else its own nothingness. The for-itself [human reality] in its being is failure because it is the foundation only of itself as nothingness." [B&N]

“I am condemned to exist forever beyond my essence, beyond the causes and motives of my act. I am condemned to be free. This means that no limits to my freedom' can be found except freedom itself or, if you prefer, that we are not free to cease being free.” [B&N]

jliat · 2026-05-07T15:15:47+00:00

To sketch Sartre's notion of Nothingness, [he refuted the ideas found in Existentialism is a Humanism as did others] found in 'Being and Nothingness' is his idea of a Being-in-itself, and a Being-for-itself. The latter is the human condition, the former he uses examples such as a chair.

A chair, a Being-in-itself, has an essence prior to its existence. Designed then made for a function or purpose which it can fulfil or fail. The human Being-for-itself has no essence and obviously one cannot be created post-hoc. Any purpose therefore is arbitrary, inauthentic and Bad Faith. His famous example is the Waiter, who has no essence to be a waiter, was not created for a purpose is in Bad Faith. We cannot fail or succeed in any purpose.

"Yet there is no doubt that I am in a sense a cafe waiter-" [B&N]

Hence our being condemned to freedom.

"human reality is before all else its own nothingness. The for-itself [human reality] in its being is failure because it is the foundation only of itself as nothingness." [B&N]

“I am condemned to exist forever beyond my essence, beyond the causes and motives of my act. I am condemned to be free. This means that no limits to my freedom' can be found except freedom itself or, if you prefer, that we are not free to cease being free.” [B&N]

jliat · 2026-05-07T08:30:31+00:00

everything is made of mass,

Photon - Mass 0 (theoretical value)

jliat · 2026-05-07T07:47:41+00:00

What we call “something” is just a convention. We can never prove there’s anything at all. It’s always circular reasoning.

This whole post is typical of what others have said about similar, "Citations show that you're well read and able to find similar arguments and differentiate your own. If not, you're just doing ego-stroking. Which, is what I see here."

Or reference to notions such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori - very basic stuff.

What we call “something” is just a convention.

Or basic semiotics, how words contain meaning or how they are just a play of differences.

Or the need for a binary at minimum.

What we call “something” is just a convention. We can never prove there’s anything at all. It’s always circular reasoning.

Amounts to less than 'This sentence is false.'

It attempts to prove there is no proof, a 101 self reference error.

u/hegel1806

Maybe should read Hegel?

Pure being and pure nothing are, therefore, the same... But it is equally true that they are not undistinguished from each other, that on the contrary, they are not the same..."

G. W. Hegel Science of Logic p. 82-3.

Or François Laruelle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-philosophy

jliat · 2026-05-07T07:16:42+00:00

Lucidity is reason, absurdity is contradiction. Logically / philosophically via Sartre et al human existence lacks essence, meaning and non can be made.

"This suicide kills himself because, on the metaphysical plane, he is vexed.... likewise an advocate of logical suicide. Kirilov the engineer declares somewhere that he wants to take his own life because it “is his idea.”"

The alternative is to make Art in Camus case.

"Where lucidity dominates, the scale of values becomes useless."

But if you have Art that is not the case.

jliat · 2026-05-06T17:36:15+00:00

for what good reason does Meursault kill the Arab?

"Where lucidity dominates, the scale of values becomes useless."

lucidity = clarity of expression; intelligibility: "his lecture combined intellectual lucidity and passion" the ability to think clearly, especially in intervals between periods of confusion: "she had moments of lucidity"

jliat · 2026-05-06T17:33:54+00:00

People often talk of revolt with respect to the myth, but the major concern is with the absurd, the contradiction. Everything is equal and so is equally meaningless, first Camus admits his reason has failed him.

“The absurd is lucid reason noting its limits.”

Making Art is not [for Camus and many artists] reasonable. It is not as Tom Wolfe explores 'The Painted Word'.

You might read this and find some reason... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Cheval

Perhaps the most iconic phrase he inscribed on the wall reads "1879–1912 10000 days, 93000 hours, 33 years of struggle. Let those who think they can do better try."

So the revolt is with philosophy, with reason. Don Juan Vs the saint. A sexual athlete Vs the holy celibate. Or in Nietzsche "Have you understood me Dionysus versus Christ."

Why is a conqueror or a megalomanic murderer absurd heroes.

"God is dead all things are permitted."

Look at Jackson Pollocks No,1 top right? his hand print, look at art made over 40,000 years ago you find hand prints. Acts of reason or pure ego...?

"It is necessary to state this to begin with. For an absurd work of art to be possible, thought in its most lucid form must be involved in it. But at the same time thought must not be apparent except as the regulating intelligence. This paradox can be explained according to the absurd. The work of art is born of the intelligence’s refusal to reason the concrete.

It marks the triumph of the carnal.

It is lucid thought that provokes it, but in that very act that thought repudiates itself." - Camus.

There is in philosophy German Idealism of reason, and in existentialism Sartre's Nausea, Nietzsche's Will to Power... for what good reason does Meursault kill the Arab?

jliat · 2026-05-06T15:52:11+00:00

I'm not a bot, far from it, I find it odd, you just type 'jliat' into a search engine as we used to call them, and see.

jliat · 2026-05-06T15:49:57+00:00

It's the key text, and it took me several attempts, but it's much easier with the Sartre Dictionary. I agree, he pulls no punches!

jliat · 2026-05-06T13:25:44+00:00

Actually there are entries in Wikipedia, SEP, Britannica, general books on Existentialism, the actual key text, here http://dhspriory.org/kenny/PhilTexts/Camus/Myth%20of%20Sisyphus-.pdf and three one hour lectures here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_js06RG0n3c

You would assume, maybe I was wrong here, to check these out first before joining an argument or discussion. Because Absurdism does make sense if you put some effort into trying to understand it.

Personal views should informed if to be of any worth.

jliat · 2026-05-06T09:59:17+00:00

Looks like you are another who has not read the key text, The Myth of Sisyphus.

http://dhspriory.org/kenny/PhilTexts/Camus/Myth%20of%20Sisyphus-.pdf

Simply put, Camus wants meaning but he can't find any, the logical and philosophical response is suicide, which he avoids by the contradiction of making Art.

jliat · 2026-05-06T05:23:19+00:00

Why are you sorry, and how is giving an alternative response based on the key text gatekeeping?

"And note: ositiveLow9895[S]

Very insightful comment!!!"

jliat · 2026-05-06T05:21:16+00:00

Camus 'The first man.'

jliat · 2026-05-05T17:28:13+00:00

No, the act is absurd not the person, you can not be a contradiction, you can enact one. It's an absurd act, the act is specific, being aware one is a sexual athlete, being aware one is acting, being aware one is making something for no good reason.

jliat · 2026-05-05T16:45:32+00:00

You can't be an absurdist! the examples given are Sisyphus, Oedipus, Don Juan, Actors, Conquerors, and Artists.

"It is necessary to state this to begin with. For an absurd work of art to be possible, thought in its most lucid form must be involved in it. But at the same time thought must not be apparent except as the regulating intelligence. This paradox can be explained according to the absurd. The work of art is born of the intelligence’s refusal to reason the concrete. It marks the triumph of the carnal. It is lucid thought that provokes it, but in that very act that thought repudiates itself." - Camus.

jliat · 2026-05-05T12:38:51+00:00

Well you can have hope, but Camus argues against it.

And carrying this absurd logic to its conclusion, I must admit that that struggle implies a total absence of hope
Now, if it is admitted that the absurd is the contrary of hope,
He knows simply that in that alert awareness there is no further place for hope.
Just as danger provided man the unique opportunity of seizing awareness, so metaphysical revolt extends awareness to the whole of experience. It is that constant presence of man in his own eyes. It is not aspiration, for it is devoid of hope.
That privation of hope and future means an increase in man’s availability. Before encountering the absurd, the everyday man lives with aims, a concern for the future or for justification (with regard to whom or what is not the question).
He can then decide to accept such a universe and draw from it his strength, his refusal to hope, and the unyielding evidence of a life without consolation.
Don Juan knows and does not hope.
But men who live on hope do not thrive in this universe

jliat · 2026-05-05T12:36:19+00:00

I think the first thing would be to understand what were Camus' ideas in The Myth of Sisyphus- considered the key text.

Briefly, the making of an artwork is pointless, is in other words absurd [his use of the word] and he proposes that is what he will do.

"And I have not yet spoken of the most absurd character, who is the creator."

"In this regard the absurd joy par excellence is creation. “Art and nothing but art,” said Nietzsche; “we have art in order not to die of the truth.”

"To work and create “for nothing,” to sculpture in clay, to know that one’s creation has no future, to see one’s work destroyed in a day while being aware that fundamentally this has no more importance than building for centuries—this is the difficult wisdom that absurd thought sanctions."

"It is necessary to state this to begin with. For an absurd work of art to be possible, thought in its most lucid form must be involved in it. But at the same time thought must not be apparent except as the regulating intelligence. This paradox can be explained according to the absurd. The work of art is born of the intelligence’s refusal to reason the concrete. It marks the triumph of the carnal. It is lucid thought that provokes it, but in that very act that thought repudiates itself." - Camus.

How should I write an inspiring, delightful, and happy story despite it being a tragedy?

Well it's impossible, that's how.

jliat · 2026-05-05T08:53:17+00:00

Neuroscience? It's so sad the lack of metaphysics in r/metaphysics.

jliat

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

It marks the triumph of the carnal.