Nothingness and Zero

 

Recently, I was thinking about nothing. I was curious as to whether vacuums can occur naturally within nature. I read many heavy (in many senses of the word) physics and philosophical journals and books on the subject and it all seemed rather vague and uninformed. So, I then looked at Wikipedia and lo and behold I found my answer, and that answer is…no one knows.

 

This then started me thinking about what a vacuum is, i.e. a state of nothingness. A pure vacuum will contain nothing and thusly would not even be visible as to see it photonic energy would have to interact with/pass through it as all that we can see with our optic nerve (eyes) is contingent on light. Just as a black hole is defined by the things around it, so a vacuum would also have to be contingent on context to glean meaning. And this is the crux. Our notion of everything depends on context, or rather I should say the delusion we have of knowing anything stems from context. This is just as true for nothing for what is nothing if not the absence of something. What do I mean? Well, say I have a pen before me I can say I have a pen before me. If the pen was removed, I would say, I had a pen before me but now all I have is an empty space where the pen was, the emptiness equating with nothing. It wouldn’t have to be so direct. I could say there is nothing before me as there is not a cup before me. This would still depend on me knowing what a cup is and knowing that that which I call a cup is not placed before me. So, either of these examples are dependent on prior knowledge, that of the pen/cup, and thusly the absence of either would create a state of ‘nothing’. If I knew of no ‘somethings’ and I was sat at a table I would not say that the table is empty, rather I would say that the table is as it is, indeed I would not even know of the concept of here/there, being/non-being, or in other words, nothingness.

 

As we have seen, how we perceive the world stems from a prior knowledge, a knowledge that we can express through language. Whilst I might know what the moniker ‘pen’ and ‘cup’ mean, if I were to speak to a French person who did not speak English and were to say, ‘there is a cup before me, and now there is no cup before me, there is nothing on my desk’, the French person would not understand what I was saying, even if they did understand the context. Subsequently, a more universal form of language was required, and that was mathematics. In order to create a structure to enable ‘understanding’ of the universe mathematics was created- a series of number to which different meaning can be prescribed yet which speak of a ‘state’.

If I were to go back to the French person and say I have 1(cup) then we could agree that I have 1. If I were then to remove the cup, I would then be able to say that I have 1(cup) and have removed 1(cup) (1-1) and now I have zero cups (1-1=0). From this would could say that I have nothing as I have subtracted something to leave me with nothing.  Yet the state of nothingness (zero) is only viable in the form of an absence of something. Thulsy, it seems clear that we can conclude that nothingness does not occur naturally in nature and the concept of the number Zero is a facsimile created to explain, not the state of nothingness, but rather, the absence of something.

 

‘till next time

Are People Bad?

 

 

Over the last few months, I have been repeatedly told that ‘people aren’t bad, they do bad things, but they aren’t bad’. This, for me, created a cognitive dissonance as how can good people do bad things, consciously, if they are truly good? Or in other words, can good people willingly take actions which are bad and can one who willingly chooses to take bad actions be good?

 

The question comes down to the autonomy of the individual. Regular readers will know that I am sceptical as to the notion of free will, for what I defined free will as is freedom of interpretation-things happen and how we respond is up to us- this point I countered by saying that if we are shaped by nature and nurture (yes, both) then our reactions are preordained (ooo, leading word), fit within the concept of ‘us’. But let us assume for a moment that I am completely wrong, hey, that wasn’t supposed to be so easy, and state that we have free will and that all individuals are autonomous.

 

Often it is said that how we are defined is through our actions. This might be a simplification however, building upon the premise that ‘people aren’t bad, they do bad things, but they aren’t bad’, we can test this notion.

 

The psychologist R.J.Lifton, in his excellent book about the Nazi doctors (The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide), raises the concept of doubling. It is when one can carry out bad actions (in this case, sending Jews to the death chambers) but not think of themselves as being bad because they want to make their children happy by building a garden in the camp for them (hello Joseph Mengele) or in a more banal sense, bullying people in private then making grand, public gestures of generosity to others to control, not only how one is perceived by others but, more importantly, by themselves, after all Nietzsche said, lies to others is much rarer than lies to one’s self. Here we can see a contradiction in actions- some consciously bad and some consciously good. Thusly we cannot state the nature of a person by one action but by a cumulative of actions. It is said that to see someone’s nature one must look at those they deem to be arbitrarily inferior to them, this, as we have seen with Mr Mengele, gives a clearer indication of their nature.

 

Speaking of the banal, in her reporting on the trial of the Nazi Eichmann in Jerusalem, Hannah Arendt coined the phrase, the banality of evil. Eichmann, a middle manager (ugh, evil!), was in charge of the trains to the death camps. When asked about his actions he proudly stated that he did his job perfectly and when asked about the people he sent to his death, he shrugged and said it was none of his business. However, this can also be seen as an example of doubling- by doing his job well, Eichmann earnt the praise of his bosses and thusly he could justify his actions of aiding and abetting genocide and yet, unlike Mengele, this was not some grand action but rather the mundane, every day  in which his badness manifested.

 

One might then counter this by saying, as did Socrates, that Eichmann was merely ignorant as to the consequences of his action- yes they were being sent to die but by divorcing them from their humanity and making them nameless faces, Eichmann could not possibly know the consequences of his actions. There are two forms of ignorance- one forgivable the other not. The forgivable form is when one does not know something so attempts to learn. The unforgivable form is when one is ignorant and remains wilfully ignorant- yes, they are sent off to die, but who cares, I have to make sure the trains run on time.

 

One might argue that the ignorance as a defence finds another supporter, that in the shape of Jesus Christ. When on the cross, Jesus looked down at those below and asked for forgiveness for them for their actions were born of ignorance. Yet does Jesus absolve then of their sins- the sin of ignorance. I would argue that although he forgives them for murder, they are still sinful in their ignorance, i.e. the notion that the herd is greater than the individual, as Fromm said, just because it is ‘normalised’ doesn’t mean it is right (or in this instance, good).

 

The last example I will look at in relation to actions stems from the theorist John Rawls who speaks of a veil of ignorance- i.e. if you were to step back and know nothing then how would it seem to you? If you don’t know Mengele’s actions towards his children, would you say there was anything good about one wilfully and consciously sending people to their deaths and vice versa?  If you didn’t know the bully we spoke of before made grand public gestures of generosity would you say that this person engaged in bad actions but was good? The answer to these questions is no and thusly we have reached the crux. If we can conclude that we have free will and we have full control over our actions then the only way we can be judged is on the totality of our actions- both the good and the bad and as with the Ancient Egyptians, if the heart ways more than the feather then we can conclude that the person was, over all, wilfully bad and thus we can conclude that, even through from birth we are all created equally, through choices and actions we shape ourselves and then, yes, we can say some people’s defining characteristic of their personality is bad and this alibi ‘people aren’t bad, they do bad things, but they aren’t bad’ should be seen for what it is- the mass acceptance of bad behaviour (think herd behaviour etc.). But then, on the plus side, if there is no free will then nothing matters anyway, so, how about that?

 

 

‘till next time

Why I Am Always Right

 

Recently I have been thinking a lot about absolutes- is there anything which is absolute? The obvious answer is yes or no depending on your perspective and this is the crux, as I have shown here before, everything is subjective. But if we discount myself for a moment and look at the world as being finite (both physical and metaphysical) then can we draw any absolutes? Einstein has shown that time is subjective (although he didn’t realise what he was doing), Kant has shown that we cannot know anything of anything beyond our senses and most theologies have shown that something may or may not happen once we have died however, can we claim that there are things which transcend these ‘truths’ and becomes an absolute?

 

The most obvious answer I could think of, when pondering this, is the notion of not doing harm. The basis of medicine is simply ‘do no harm’, however, this should be caveated for example, if a leg is set wrong and needs to be fixed it must first be broken to reset. The worst pain that a child goes through is adolescent, but this must be passed through to the next stage of life, indeed, Seneca said that no one becomes wise by accident, one must pass through hardship to be become wise.

 

These forms of hardship which I have listed can fall under a category, and that category I would define as ‘necessary harm’, or in other words, one must endure such suffering to grow to the next stage of their being. From this we can conclude that the one absolute would be ‘do no unnecessary harm’.

 

Good? Well, frankly, no. This then comes down to definition- define necessary. If one falls in love from an early age and gets married etc. and lives happily ever after, not knowing the pain of heartbreak, then the individual will grow without the darkness that the pain brings- meaning that it is unnecessary to suffer such. Regular readers will know how I have dismissed the notion that one’s character can only be seen through hardship for hardship is an unnatural position to be in as one must react to  a negative situation (acting out of necessity) thusly, the one true judge of one’s self/another would be when one can hose how to act/how to be, or in other words, at play when one is relaxed and one cannot claim that the actions are out of necessity (ignoring for a moment that one could argue that it is necessary for one to ‘have fun’ for mental/physical/emotional wellbeing).

 

Everything, I would argue, comes down to the interpretation of the individual, however, this is something which is often ignored for sweeping statements of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. Berkeley’s comment, ‘few people think, yet all have opinions’ can be extended to notions of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. One might say that the good of the whole outweighs the good of the individual (yup, Spock was wrong), yet this cannot be as everything is made of individuals and thusly the true ‘good’ of one adds to the ‘goodness’ of all (showing how things such as reasonable adjustments are not to be dismissed as damaging to the whole but are, in fact, for the good of the whole). Yes, one of the most damming things one can say of our species is that we are a weak, worthless species who are aware of this fact and thusly endeavours to live in the Egyptian river, de Nile. An inability to see one’s self as being wrong cripples many attempts of growth. The necessary and the unnecessary become blurred and actions are self-serving only (consciously or unconsciously) and all judgements are a reflection of self (I am a good person ergo my actions must be good ergo post hoc ergo propter hoc my actions were good, even if they caused unnecessary harm).

 

Whilst we cannot know anything- not even the impact of our actions- it seems clear to me that, although there are no absolute absolutes, one absolute which we can take from this is that our lives should be spent trying not to cause any unnecessary harm to others and there are times when I may appear right or may appear wrong, however, the fact is that it really doesn’t matter as long as you live your life in a manner in which the one necessary absolute truth by which we live is simply, be kind. If we follow this then we will all be ‘right’ as in exhibiting what can be classed as human rights (see what I did there? Sigh…).

 

 

‘till next time

A Critique of Stoicism

 

The stoic philosophers had the answers. Life is hard and meaningless so why bother caring? Your wife will die, your daughter will die, your great great grandchildren will die-so why bother caring?

 

Stoicism teaches us that when life gives you lemons, reflect on the emptiness of the gesture and move on. The philosophy is very comforting as it promotes that most worthless of all qualities- masculinity.  Being strong, hard and cold in the face of overwhelming hardship and yes the problem you may see with this is also what makes me weary.

 

Stoics have conquered their emotions. They have taken that weakness in us and made it a non-factor and in doing so they have lost that element that makes us feel alive: life.

 

Life is hard and sad, disappointment and depression but it is through this that life has meaning. A broken heart is tragic but it proves that love was real-not only real, but you could experience it- you had the emotional ability and maturity to do so. Hope, the Greeks teach us, is both the best and worst as it keeps you from suffering, but, as Nietzsche points out, prolongs suffering. However, no matter how we perceive suffering- to be endured or to be overcome, it is inescapable to say that it is part of life, part of what it takes to be human.

 

A friend once told me that he was recommended to take support to HR meetings as otherwise he (yes, he) would get too emotional. He told me that the meeting was about how best to fit him back within ten confines of the workplace and not about supporting his emotional needs. Emotional needs get a bad reputation with idiots taking horses onto planes as support animals yet we cannot escape that we all have emotional needs and requirements.  By we, I mean, everyone.  Even psychopaths and sociopaths have deep emotional needs, to be without emotion is to be, well, non-human. The lesson that we, education and the law teaches children is that to be emotional is a sign of weakness, that abuse, bullying, violence, should be endured without complaint and from this character is born. Personally, if a child was bullied and sought support from therapists, parents and the school, flying in the face of centuries of domestication, that shows true character, to do otherwise would just be a damming indictment of civilisation after all we are, first and foremost,  human. If only more people recognised that and stopped murdering those who speak this inconvenient truth.

 

 

Stoicism takes away humanity as we are emotional beings, that is the essence of our humanity.

 

’till next time