Something/Nothing
Something is Nothing (we shall leave it capitalised, as it is the name of an experiential state -albeit the absence of one- but is still distinguishable) if it is nominally so, if there is no ‘thing in itself’, nor is a relation among things; and we must distinguish this from a space in between objects, which have metaphysical corporeality and ideological extension. Rather, Nothingness is merely an abstract concept; it is something that is born from the understanding (we will not argue here on general linguistics, of whether all names of things are simply nominal, but of their having a direct correspondence to the object/objects –if we can disseminate or separate the ‘thing/s’ of experience from the general ‘block’ of perception/ consciousness) and is different in kind to Something, that is, to experience (it is not different in degree, but rather different in kind, as it is unexperienceable, and is conceptually existent as opposite, i.e., the negation of Something) (Fig. 1.). Therefore, Something is what we determine as being the object/s of our experience, and Nothing is simply the negation of this; it is merely a nominal abstract concept used to negate, and to understand this absence (although it is not existent, except conceptually, as I have already suggested). ‘All that is, is experienceable; and all that is not, is not. Rather, it is a polarised (albeit entirely separate) abstraction to general experience’ would be a good concision on what we have said.
Fig.1.
------------------------(Dividing line)------------------------
Something Nothing
So, why is the distinction between Something / Nothing even existent? I believe that this dichotomy of experience/ non-experience (and is not a dichotomy in the sense that they are not entirely separate, or are, but only in the terms of Nothing being the opposite of Something, but of not occupying any meaning, or qualities, except as lying in whatever the opposite of what something is- therefore being wholly dependent on it) exists as a self-reflective act on our parts on the nature of experience, and is used to understand the object/s therein / the nature of experience; it is simply a by-product of experiencing, of being able to formulate concepts -based on what we experience- and is merely an abstract negation of this. It is also a rationalisation of non-experience, or the cessation of experience, and may also be a comprehension of what death, or non-being (as a conscious entity), may be like. So, as a concept, it may be existent, partly, because of our own understanding of the finitude (notions of time, etc.) of experience, and may therefore be an entirely human concept, which further adds to the idea that Nothingness is nothing in itself, but rather, as being nominal, and based wholly on our understanding of Something, as a negation of it.
By Perry Smith
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Something/Nothing' Issue 24
