Much Ado About
Does nothing exist? I would argue that there is always something, even when one thinks there is nothing. An empty box has air inside, which though invisible, is something. Oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen molecules are present in the empty box. The great vacuum of space in all its vastness has small amounts of something even though light years may separate one something from the nearest something else. In fact, nothing as a quantity is still a quantity it is simply the very least amount of something, (whatever category of something that may be) one can have.
So, what is the closest approximation to true and total absence, or nothing? I would argue that the closest state of nothingness that exists in this plane of existence is the unique state of mind the male of our species is able to achieve when it's at rest. This state is difficult for the female of the species to fathom which causes no small amount of frustration. For example, let's say a female of the species asks a male of the species, "What are you thinking about?" The male's response of, "Nothing" seems to be either an attempt at deception or simply impossible.
To the male of the species he really isn't thinking of anything. This doesn't mean that his brain has entered a state of total stagnancy. It simply means that nothing on the conscious level is within male's flickering and dim intellectual spotlight. Of course, the neurological processes of breathing, maintaining a heartbeat, digestion, and the countless other biological processes the brain is responsible for are engaged, but to the male such mechanisms aren't worth considering out loud and therefore qualify as nothing.
How is this possible you ask? Simple. The male of the species has a less sophisticated brain than his female counterpart. It has been scientifically confirmed that less evolved thought processes of the male remain much like his prehistoric Neanderthal ancestors and are primarily focused on procuring food, shelter, fucking (procreation is rarely a conscious level motive here), entertainment, and the size of his penis. Now, it is nearly impossible for the male of the species to think about more than one of these limited categories at a time. One area of focus may inadvertently assist in the achievement of another area of focus, but this is a result of one simple drive being complimentary to another and not an intentionally thought out part of a larger plan in which another goal is achieved.
Let's say that the male of the species wants to fuck something other than his hand. While self-pleasure provides release for a biological urge, it can also lead to carpal tunnel syndrome which reduces the male's ability to provide for himself and thus hinders his chances for survival. Coincidentally, the male has worked to provide for his basic biological needs. He has obtained suitable shelter, a consistent food source, and the means to maintain both beyond the short term. A female of the species observes the male's efforts and acknowledges his capabilities and the characteristics that allowed him to be successful, both of which meet her qualifications for a suitable mate. As a result, the male has unintentionally made himself fuckable. He would've obtained shelter and food in order to address his basic biological needs without considering the female. The female's reaction to his efforts are simply a bonus. So, with a limited number of categories which require thought to focus on, the male of the species is able to reduce his thought processes to the biological minimum to continue living.
In comparison to her male counterpart, the female's brain is a natural multi-tasker capable of complex planning and problem solving in the short and long term. This advanced ability to think beyond the basic need to survive allows the female to improve higher brain functions such as emotions, ethical responses to adverse conditions, the ability to nurture, and empathy. All this activity means that the female brain is in a constant state of thought. Consequently, the female of the species cannot fathom how the male of the species can achieve a state where thought is idling simply waiting for the need to obtain the basic necessities of life, attend the next monster truck rally at the fairgrounds, spend money on a raised pickup truck (or to be Freudianly honest, treatment for being phallically challenged), or watch the movie where the lead actress is topless. So, when the female asks the male what he's thinking his response of, "Nothing" seems absurd and dishonest. Sadly, 99% of the time he is telling the truth.
In short, it is difficult to say that a complete and total absence of anything, or nothing exists. The closest thing to nothing is the mental holding pattern the male of the species is able to achieve when he's not working towards a very finite number of goals using an equally finite number of methods. It is the limited capability of male thought that has been the bane of human advancement for centuries. War, discrimination, masogyny, and a constant need for more demonstrates the male's less than advanced ability to think, analyze, empathize, and nurture. A brain too complex to achieve a state where it can think about nothing should be given the chance to run things for awhile. Too bad our management or potential management choices are two old corrupt men one of whom has no moral qualms about grabbing a lady's, your daughter's, your wife's, your sister's.....while being worshiped by, "Good Christians." Frankly, I think even Neanderthal man's brain would defy its evolutionary limitations enough to be ashamed.
A paradox
The way I see it, there are two types of nothing. One is relative, the other is perpetual.
Neither of them truly exist. You want to get technical? A bit of logic and poetry can help to explain.
If we’re talking about an absolute void of nothingness - complete nothingness witnessed by no thing and nobody, it wouldn’t matter if it existed or not. Nothing is there to experience it. It’s truly a crazy thing to think about, but if ‘nothing’ existed then it wouldn’t ‘exist’ in the first place. Existence is a word used only by those who exist.
If there were an outside observer, then the very word “nothing” makes it something; it’s still a place being observed.
Still with me ? Good.
Now, since we live in a universe, with energy, matter, and observers, the word “nothing” is an incorrect word to use. It’s more of an exaggeration. Some quotes that resonate:
“Nature abhors a vacuum” - Aristotle
“Nothingness not being nothing, nothingness being emptiness.” -Isabelle Adjani
In addition to that, “the usefulness of a cup, is its emptiness.” - Osho
Our laws of thermodynamics essentially state that a complete void of nothingness is impossible. Even in the depths of space, it’s not nothing. It still has the slightest temperature, and light waves travel its boundaries endlessly.
There is no such thing as a total absence of anything. Darkness? Just an absence of light. Evil? Just an absence of good. Cold? Just an absence of heat. But -30° C feels warm if you just experienced -40°. Every evil person has a chance to do good. Even the darkest night will always yield to light.
To get more personal, we all have a void within us. I find mine when a lover breaks my heart. When I experience true loneliness. When I drink or indulge in drugs, my emotions fade away. When I fail repeatedly, I feel worthless. If I have nowhere to belong, I feel as if I’m a waste of space.
But I am still me, I am still here, and I still feel even if it’s not much. This void I find within me is a canvas. Waiting for my direction, waiting for me to paint the most beautiful picture I can.
You see, there is no such thing as nothingness, so long as there’s a word for it.
The Proof
"What's in a name?" I asked Sagar, the most mischievous student in my class. He had an annoying habit of doing everything but pay attention to the topic at hand,
After a brief pause, he stood up to amused murmurs:
"Shakespeare, Sir!"
"What's in a name?" I quipped triumphantly and the class exploded.
Sagar sat down with an embarrassed smirk.
Just for the record. I teach Mathematics, not Literature or Philosophy. Purist may argue abstract math comes close to the latter. Also, for the record, Sagar had interrupted me by complaining:
"Sir, yesterday you had used x as the variable but today you use y! Why?"
This had prompted my witty reaction.
Another ten minutes or so and I had just about finished finding the limit of a function where x < 0, followed by a neat line of chalk drawn down the middle of the blackboard. The portion on the right said "otherwise" at the top, followed by another set of steps calculating the limit when x >= 0.
I had barely turned around when Sagar, as was his wont, asked:
"Sir, I don't understand the otherwise part-"
I had fair bit to cover in the balance 15 minutes so I interrupted him and said:
"It's really simple Sagar! I'm wise and you're otherwise." and regretted it as soon as I finished even as the rest of the class enjoyed this banter.
Sagar remained standing, arms crossed. I ignored him and continued with the lecture.
At the end of the period, I reminded my wards of an assignment, due early next week.
"I know the concepts may be tough," I saged, "But remember: Nothing is Impossible!"
I then began gathering my books and bag when Sagar called out:
"Hold on, Sir! I believe nothing is possible."
Intrigued, I stopped and faced him:
"Okay. You're in a math class. Can you prove it?"
"Sure," he replied with a wide grin, "I've attended each of your lectures diligently this year but trust me, Sir, I learnt nothing!"
On Free Will and Justice
The age old question of whether we truly have free will is a question that has many implications for criminal justice. If we are to fall into the deep hole that no one has free will, then what then of consequences? Every lawyer will just defend their client as having acted because of the collective past experiences of their life.
If free will does exist, how much can we ascribe to free will and voluntary decision making compared to decision making influenced by our environments or past? Can someone in a psychotic break be responsible for believing in delusions and sabotaging relationships? Can we see that those growing up in poverty are more likely to struggle financially because of their circumstances?
Regardless of what the neuroscience says about free will, the lack of existence of free will or the presence of free will both have an influence on criminal justice. They bring into question who can be held responsible if at all for their behaviors.
There is, however, an interesting result of how one thinks about consequences based on where one stands on this spectrum. For those who ascribe circumstantial evidence that excuses an individual, these people are probably more likely to think big picture. A person’s actions are moulded by others. It takes a village to raise a child so why not a village held responsible when a child does something abhorrent? What about all the other people in their life that could have intervened but did not?
This perspective can be more empathetic and understanding in certain cases, but it is also difficult to balance. On the extreme end, the consequences can be dire. If a lot of people are responsible, what are their consequences? It would be difficult to ascribe responsibility in an almost arbitrary manner. There would be many arguments going at once regarding who should face consequence and how. It would enlarge the bureaucracy and also prevent a fast and speedy trial as they are bogged down by the extraneous details.
It would, also, be considered deeply unfavorable by the general population and pose threats to privacy. Who is to say a neighbor is somehow responsible for a murder in the next house over when they did not know anything about it? They would need to invade privacy to “keep watch” like a guard to prevent negative consequences happening to them.
On the other hand, if one is very anti-deterministic, it might make one very harsh and leaning towards punishment. Why give anyone any leeway for their behavior when they should have known better? Doing wrong when one doesn’t need to days everything about the character of the offender. They would need to be locked up for possessing lesser than ideal character and continually tracked until the deficit is fixed. This perspective also has racist undertones as different races were once considered morally inferior. To feed into a punitive system would create a cycle of arrests and serve punishments that don’t deter crime but are given out as a consequence of not being “good” enough.
Of course, one can imagine a non-punitive system that is predated on free will, but it would still look away at systemic injustices and the big picture that influence one’s behavior. Would anyone dare say that a hungry man is not understandable to steal if they have no other way to eat? Even if the consequences are lenient, it misses out on the larger issues. The bigger question is: why is this person going hungry in the first place?
It is clear to me that taking the extremes of either side lead to short-sided thinking. It would be better to balance opinions on a case-by-case basis and not resort to extremes to solve the issue. The middle, however, is always murky and some people fall further to the right or to the left of the spectrum. Which is a better worldview largely depends on how people understand crime. Is crime largely motivated by past experiences or due to a character flaw? It is the position of the author that it is better to lean more towards past experiences as a large motivator for crime rather than a character deficit as the adage, better to let five guilty people go free than to imprison one innocent, is a similar logic to how I see it. It’s better to be lenient but fair with consequences and not ruin a life if the crime is largely redeemable. This means that the person shows remorse and genuine desire to own up their crimes. Those who show no remorse and no desire to atone are those who I believe it is better to be less lenient on as they pose an ever present danger of reoffending.
take a break
“I need a day where I can just do nothing,” I say to my lab partner. We’ve been working nonstop on this research for months, and we could use a break.
But we both know that we wouldn’t actually use a day off to do nothing. I need a day to do all of the things that go into being a functioning human. I’ve been eating out for every meal, my apartment is a mess, I can’t remember the last time I hung out with friends.
Nothing has been defined by some philosophers as “the absence of something.” I’m trying to imagine what my life would look like in the absence of my lab. What would I do?
On day one, I would sleep until noon. I would stay in bed and scroll through Pinterest, saving beautiful pictures and delicious recipes. I would drive to my local coffee shop, wearing an outfit that definitely does not follow the lab safety rules, and order a sugary drink and a pastry. While enjoying my food, I would sit there and read a good book. It would be a fiction book, for once, not some biochemistry journal. My laptop would be closed for the entire day. When I felt ready, I would go back home, order a pizza, and make myself a bubble bath and a glass of wine, then watch mindless tv shows until I fell asleep.
On day two, I would return to Pinterest. I would open all of the recipes I’ve saved, buy their ingredients, and cook myself a meal. A good meal. Not a fast food meal, or one from the university faculty cafeteria. After I would wash my dishes, wash the sink, wash the kitchen counter. I would finally live in a clean space.
By the end of week one, I would have started a few artistic hobbies, maybe painting or writing poetry. I would be spending more time outside, going on walks and listening to music. Maybe I would have plans with my friends.
By the end of month one, I would have traveled to new places. I’ve seen corners of the world I never had the time to visit. I would need a companion for this, so I probably adopted a pet.
By the end of year one, I would have allowed myself to actually feel my emotions. I allow my brain to go into deep thought. I wonder about how things work, why things work. I have regained my interest in learning. There’s so much to know! So much to figure out!
One year and one day into the absence of responsibilities, I will find myself back in a lab, trying to uncover the secrets of the world.
On Reality
When I drop a ball from a building, its acceleration would be around 9.8 ms^2. Is that an objective fact or subjective? Most people would say objective. I wonder what the opposing side would say. If reality is truly subjective, how could it be that gravity is different for everyone? Well—maybe there are some subjective elements that influence this fact’s existence. After all, the existence of this fact is based on a body of people, who are subjective, being specifically interested in the acceleration due to Earth’s gravitational pull. Bodies of scientists have continually updated the information we have found with substantial arguments and disagreements over time. Even though the fact itself may not be subjective, the surrounding culture and entities that study it and build off from it are, indeed, subjective.
This subjectivity is more prominent in the social sciences more so than the traditional “hard” sciences. It’s hard to disagree about the acceleration due to gravity, but it’s much harder to say there is one objective social reality. If someone experiences racism everyday as a black man, that is a different experience than a white man. Their sense of reality in social life would be quite different. The black man would feel degraded and threatened by the racism he faces while a white man may not even consider the possibility of being mistaken for a criminal and shot down.
Reality as subjective or objective depends on what subject area you wish to enquire about. Differences in social reality often come about due to structural inequities. While one may taken for granted being able to freely run down a dark street at night, another would consider it a death threat. Other information like the facts about gravity are less debated, but the true mysteries lies in between fields or the meta-level questions of science. Who gets to define what life constitutes? How are things categorized and why? What constitutes enough evidence for something to be considered true? All of these questions challenge us to think deeper about facts. There is more to the world than pure positivism.
The Day the Whispers Began
The day the whispers began was the last day of Ramadan. Many--almost two billion people--believed Gabriel was giving new revelations to the faithful.
The whispers were unintelligible, felt to be some exotic dialect, long extinct.
Then, Catholic women were hearing them, too. Again, it was felt to be the angel, Gabriel, because of his message given so long ago to the blessed mother. But Catholic men began hearing them a week later. Again, the whispers were unintelligible
The Jews were next, but only their first-born children. Again, unintelligible.
Soon all religions had those who heard them. Even the atheists began hearing them, with the unsurprising decline in the world's atheist numbers. Yet, the Pope, Imans, rabbis, and any official church representatives were deaf to them.
The whispers could not be recorded. Only silence was laid down when this was attempted. Linguistic experts weighed in, but a consortium of scholars was unable to put down in writing what was being heard by each faction.
The whispers, when mimicked by talented speakers into voiced utterances, remained gibberish.
Whispers are as much an exclusively human thing as music, literature, poetry, art, and--now--religion. Yet, unlike those, which augment the human "to be" to new heights of fulfillment, a whisper is a degradation, a devaluation--not of what is being said, but of the one saying it. Whispered just so, the speaker's message can be without gender, age, accent, or any other identifiable mien. It is stripped down of all speaker attributes except for one:
Urgency.
Whispers are delivered furtively. In secret. In the shortest possible distance from mouth to ear. And a proper secret, always whispered, also is always urgent. Something meant for just one person to know.
Urgently.
Those of faith heard the urgency but couldn't listen. Listening required the ear of gestalt to glean the message of an aggregate hearing--perception--flowing together from the different whispers.
Thus, the only way the whispers--this urgency, this message--could be properly delivered to the faithful was when they reconciled their individual disparate beliefs with all other beliefs vying for the One True Religion--and truly began listening.
Thus, the urgency went unanswered. It was the message in a bottle, and it was floating away.
The Wind
Akira the monk approached the Zen master and said, "Master, what is nothingness?"
Abrupty, the Zen master poked Akira in the chest with his right index finger.
Akira stepped back in shock, looked down at the master's finger and his own chest, and at once saw his true nature like a thunderclap that exploded in his diaphragm. A simultaneous flash of lightning instantly spread to the tips of his toes, fingers, and head. Akira looked up, wild eyed, nearly breathless, and said,
"Yes, master, I understand! The truth is in the Buddha Heart! I myself am nothingness because there is no self, just so many aggregates. In fact the whole universe is illusion, empty of intrinsic existence, a construct under which lies nothingness. Clinging to beliefs in either self or universe will only lead to dejection and more suffering, while rejecting them will lead to peace and wisdom. Is that it, master? Is it?!"
The master replied, "No. Pull my finger."
The Helps and Hindrances of Stoicism
Stoicism ultimately aims at the harmony of order--order within one's self, order of one's actions and possessions, and order of self within the context of the whole cosmos. Achieving harmony in these ways is Stoic eudaimonia, that is, the perfection or fulfillment of the human unto beatitude or absolute happiness. In other words, the Stoic believes that if human beings are able to achieve this three-fold order, they will not want or desire anything else--they are perfected or complete.
According to the Stoic, one's self, one's actions, and all the parts of one's self all fall under the human being's "power" to order. This is largely true. Because of my nature as a human being, here I am sitting at my computer, because I have to be somewhere. I am typing these words because I know how and I have some proclivity or tendency to do it. Further, I am content in the knowledge of what I am doing is in conformity with the logic of the cosmos such that I am not experiencing any extremity of emotion. Thus, I demonstrate the order of myself in conformity to the world around me, order in my actions, and inner order.
Again, according to the Stoic, if there is any disorder to be found among these things, there is a single remedy: knowledge. If I am sad that I am sitting here typing this rather than doing something else that I might think to be more worth my time, it is because I am ignorant of some part of the overarching logic of the universe. Either it has been ordained that I be sitting here typing and I am just ignorant as to the reason why, or I am actually supposed to be doing something else, and so that hypothetical sadness would have driven me to be doing something else. If I am sick or injured, I can be healed through a knowledge of medicine or the knowledge of a doctor, to bring myself back to a certain equanimity of life. For whatever disorder, knowledge can bring order.
It very much seems that Stoicism is the answer to the many ills of our time. The teenage mental health crisis as a result of social media addiction seems able to be solved by the knowledge that putting down the phone and hanging out with people is good for teenagers. If tech CEOs and boards knew not to be so tight-fisted over the trillions (yes, with a capital "TR") of dollars in their control, perhaps the economy would be in better shape. Perhaps, someone should tell them.
On paper (or in this case, on screen), this all sounds like it should work and lead to happiness, but it ultimately does not. There are a few problems with Stoicism that are insurmountable. For one, it certainly seems our will is free contra Stoic determinism. I think many people, teens included, know that scrolling for hours on end is bad for them and yet they fall into it because it is something of a natural tendency. The Stoic is all about following our tendencies and inclinations. As a result people are sad and depressed in alarming numbers. Why? I think Aristotle had the right answer in saying there are conflicting appetites in human nature, and that we have to choose to follow our intellectual appetites. There is a free choice to make, and a certain amount of effort needed to make that choice. Knowledge is not enough.
Another related problem is the reality of our emotions. Stoicism denies the moral usefulness and value of our passions. One thing the Stoics definitely get right is that our decisions should be made in an "even-keeled" emotional state as much as possible. In doing so, we are able to let reason take the reins and make the best, most reasonable decision. However, I question both the sanity and moral compass of anyone who does not want to mourn the death of a loved one, or rejoice in the birth of their child.
I can understand if someone wants to cry and yet cannot, since mourning is a complex experience. But death is a natural evil which should move anyone to sadness even if it is not exteriorly expressed. A Stoic apatheia is not really welcome in such a case, which we modernly would call an emotional numbness. Again, that numbness is a tendency that we can just "fall into" suffering, but most people will say that it is not something they really want. People want to feel. It takes effort to actively process, become vulnerable, and let the gravity of loss "sink in." There is such a thing as "a good cry," and it comes with the knowledge of the reality that death is not a good thing, even if it is a natural thing. The experience of feeling is a two-sided coin. It is only by allowing oneself to be vulnerable to mourning and feeling sadness that one is thus also enabled to rejoice and feel joy. To reject emotions is to reject both sadness and joy.
So what does all this mean in application? No, I do not think that just because Stoicism is wrong that it should be entirely dismissed and never talked about. There are certainly parts of life that it gets right. Making decisions based purely on passion and instinct is certanly not the right way to live life. Living life only in and by emotions does not capture the truth of human nature and experience. And, obviously, harmony and order are good and noble things for which we should definitely seek. So, parts of Stoicism are helpful pedagogically in the quest for the real truth of the human being, who is a rational animal. Living stoically up to a point, then, is helpful for developing the virtue of temperance which is one of the Stoic virtues. Temperance is the control of the emotions. If someone is overly emotional, Stoicism can help in the practice of developing the habit of "tamping" them down before thinking and making a decision, which helps also in the exercise of another virtue, prudence. This leads to an inner harmony and order, letting reason reign as the most important part of human nature. However, as mentioned above, the feeling of emotions is a part of human nature, a reality that Stoicism denies as a human good. Further, being physicalist-materialist in essence, Stoicism denies that the human will is free. The merely Stoic man may be free of sadness, but he is not truly free.
Stoicism vs. Modern America
This is not an essay on the history of the Stoic philosophy or a judgment on any of its ideals. There are thousands and thousands of books and scrolls and web pages and podcasts which cover the specifics. This is simply my thoughts on how an enduring moral philosophy is applicable today. I know Prose has done away with timestamps, but for context, this is written by a middle-aged, white American, in a southern state during the second Trump/Biden presidential race.
America, has developed some recent social problems in the past decade or so. There is a great distrust in the media. Traditional media, such as network news and newspapers, have become labeled as enemies of the truth and enemies of the people. Nothing seems to exist in a politically neutral sphere anymore. Education is being accused of “brainwashing” children to indoctrinate them into whichever philosophy is antithetical to the person telling the story. Modern media, social or simply web pages, allow people to find stories they wish to hear, regardless of their accuracy. People search by conclusion (the Earth is flat) rather than by question (is the Earth flat) and limit their perspective to what they wish the answer to be.
Science and medicine have fallen into similar disfavor. Doctors are no longer treated as experts who have spent a considerable amount of time learning their craft. Pharmaceutical companies are perceived as a necessary evil driven by profit rather than a motivation to help human kind. The rigors of the scientific method are scoffed at as people would rather “do their own research” rather than understand the concept of scientific facts. The resurgence of flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers are a tribute to a loss of rational thought. The ancient Greek philosophers contemplated a round Earth in somewhere around 300 BC and Eratosthenes determined the size of our sphere (at least a damn fine guess for the lack of much technology) a hundred years later.
All of the above problems have a history which is not going to be discussed here. Do your own research.
The moral philosophy of the Stoics have strong foundational tenets which, while not solving the base problems mentioned above, would certainly help an individual navigate through a complicated world.
One tenet is the responsibility people have to each other. Stoics found humanity joined to each other in two important ways. First, we are all part of the divine, and share that quality with each other. No man, from Emperor to slave, is disconnected from any other person. Second, we all have an obligation to make society work. For mankind to live its best life, there needs to exist a certain level of trust and cooperation between everyone. Roads could not connect distant cities without a higher level plan rather than what could be accomplished by a single individual. The modern Stoic would embrace these beliefs to deal with the often volatile politics of today. There is no judgment in one have a differing political view because there are many paths to the same outcome. They would ignore the divisiveness and dismiss any activity detrimental to an individual or society. Violent rhetoric would be considered abhorrent and treated as not in line with Stoic virtues and morality.
Stoics also believed in rational thought above else. They recognized that intense feelings could cloud the judgment and lead to one behaving in an irrational manner. They valued accepting that nature is rational and also realizing that only the behavior of oneself could be controlled. There is little judgment in good or evil, as everything happens for a rational reason. In a tumultuous political and social climate, individuals would do well to concentrate on their own behavior and only work on what they can change.
As stated, one can only change oneself. Stoicism places an obligation on an individual to improve oneself. A benefit of such an obligation is that as individuals approve, so will society. An individual is meant to be virtuous and has a duty to improve in that direction. Rational thought and the suppression of too strong of any emotion will allow one to learn wisdom, insight, self-control, and justice.
The Stoic tenets would serve an individual well in any time period, but especially in the passionate, narrow view which currently seems to permeate our modern society.