I'm always amused that people think they are 'better' than a dog, a horse, a cow. They may be worse, but certainly never better.
I agree with you philosophy can be fun , but only when based upon some logical arrangements can it become meaningful. My opinion is the quote is not meaningful. It is easy to say [.....fill this space] transcends existence, it doesn't mean anything and it doesn't explain anything. It doesn't face the difficulty I think your viewpoint has with my next question. Q. Does the concept of "nothingness" exist? Answering yes? Then it is contingent upon existence and thereby does not transcend its contingency. Answering no? Then it may be worth a thought that the ability for "nothing" to transcend is relying on the existence of transcendence itself to exist. I would suggest again, existence is the irreducible primary and philisophically speaking because of that , "nothing" sits in a very large category with all things which are all inescapably dependant upon existence. Existence exists. That I contend is as near to absolute as it gets
stu, sure, the abstract idea or concept of "nothing" does exist - well, at least depending on how you define existence. Philosophy uses cause-effect and logics to reason about the universe, so to have it make sense. Your line of thinking seem to be in line with what some prominent existensialists think. They define nothingness as non-existence for the most part.
Gringinho, I'm intrigued as to what your point actually is. If Philosophy uses cause-effect and logics to reason about the universe as you say, then it is reasonable in that same philosophy to postulate everything is inescapably dependant upon existence. "sure, the abstract idea or concept of "nothing" does exist" ..then it depends upon existence to exist. A state or condition or potential or possibility of existence (however it is defined in those terms) must exist. Existence exists for "nothingness" to exist. Even if there were no consciousness , no perceptions, that condition (existence exists) would still have to apply for "nothingness" to exist. I don't consider myself in any way existentialist and quite frankly don't see it has anything do with the bottom line philosophy here anyway. On the contrary, I am putting forward a rather non- existentialist position, which suggests stuff isn't entirely free, being dependant on existence. My point is that by the philosophical argument you describe, "nothing" isn't in any different a category than all other concepts or things and cannot be any special link to knowledge you suggest. On the other hand, existence is different. It is irreducible. A step further nearer absolute.
The great 'Ogar" in Revenge of ther Nerds II said it best when he said: : "WHAT IF D-O-G REALLY MEANT C-A-T" ???
stu, you are just reiterating the central existensialist beliefs - that everything is centered around existence as the irreducible, or lack of existence - as nothingness. Existensialists say that existence precedes the nature of things, concepts, ... In my opinion, nothingness "existed" but does never "exist". The reason for this is the elusive nature of nothingness, which instantly becomes something, but we can still rationalize about and use the concept of nothingness - further on - all intelligent life and maybe other things that exist have some notion or state relating to nothingness. Nothingness has to do with knowledge and interaction so that it triggers creativity, curiosity etc. I find the post-structuralist notions more intriguing than existensialism, but there are of course subtle differences.
Again with respect Gringinho I am doing no such thing. I agree, I declare existence as irreducible, but it is surely obvious by now that I do not propose there can be any lack of existence, let alone that that state would be a knowledge of "nothingness". If that's what Existensialists say, well it's up to them. Now, I don't know how you are defining Existensialist but I think you are developing a personal or narrow view of it , not the broad meaning and it's one I don't recognize. Neveretheless this is my position I am putting to you not one of some pre-set opinion by some existensialist group or other. I think you might appreciate better what it is I am putting forward where you to understand that first. In my opinion, nothingness "existed" but does never "exist". you say that but may I remind you what you said earlier... Philosophy uses cause-effect and logics to reason.. It seems to me you are trying to by pass the irreducibility of existence by swerving past that 2nd statement of yours with the 1st one above.
stu, to me existence is that which is part of the present or the past - as in exists or existed. I don't try to reduce existence to anything else. I do think of nothingness as something different from existence, sure. But I don't think of nothingness as non-existence. For instance what's in the future does not have existence in my opinion - there is probability of course. And I think reality entails everything you can interact with - even indirectly. Furthermore, I think time requires location - i.e something relative for events to occur, and not that time is something "universally absolute" although it can be unified and modeled as such for a given set of objects. Of course these are very central terms for how to understand things, or gain knowledge - seeing what are truths etc. I do think that existence is more complicated than nothingness, in that it poses more paradoxes like Schrödinger's Cat.