Introduction to My Metaphysics: Dialectics, Nothingness, and Strawberries
In this essay, I will extensively lay out the Metaphysics of my philosophical system; I have a few new ideas, a few synthesized ideas, and a few taken ideas. All are making up my unique Metaphysics.
I take an Ontologically Monistic approach to my philosophy. Essentially I view that all of reality is derivative of one fundamental substance; I like to call that thing God. God is all, all-encompassing, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being.
However, God is not an individual, not a creator, not even a deity necessarily. God is reality. Nevertheless, it is equally above reality and encompassing of all reality. God is greater than reality but, at the same time, is reality. Everything that exists is simply an aspect of God. You, you are part of God. You are an aspect of God. Me, I am a part of God. I am an aspect of God. An apple, an apple is a part of God. An apple is an aspect of God. Reality itself is not God but instead also an aspect of God. God exists outside the limitations of reality but is the encompassing makeup of reality as well as being reality. It is an aspect of God. However, we are not atomized, not in the slightest. We are all merely derivative of God.
We are united under this totality of God. God is what unites us. We are one concept, a united singularity, undefined but equally defined. Chaotic yet Orderly, beautiful yet ugly, we are reality. We are one. We are a totality. We are part of God and yet below God. We are not an atomized concept. We are a totality. We are together. We are one.
That is the sum of my concept of God as a totality. However, there is more. I posit that existence is the precedent of reality. What this means is that existence comes before reality.
This concept may be hard to grasp but think it out. We must ask ourselves, ‘What is Reality?’ and ‘What is existence?’
Reality is all that is real, the sum of all that exists. Therefore, for reality to exist, there must be things already existing. That is the root of my argument that Existing must precede Reality.
We are born without being part of reality. We are born into a state of non-reality. We all must exist if Existence is the precedent of Reality. However, what is it to exist?
To exist is to-be-there (Dasein)
We are all born as “existing.” We all are here. We all share the same experience of “being there.” However, we are not born essentially. We are not born with an innate essence to our reality. We are not born into reality. To exist in reality is to be a part of the sum, an essential part. You must have an essence.
However, existence precedes essence. You must become. However, what is it to become?
Becoming is the passing back and forth between being and nothingness. However, we must remember that fundamentally, being and nothing are the same. The two are one in another. They are one fundamental substance that passes between each other as the flow of water in a river.
Being only exists when it is in contrast with nothing. Moreover, Nothing only exists when it is in contrast with being. Neither can exist as one. They must pass between each other, slowly morphing into one, that process of morphing is becoming—the passage between being and nothing.
Furthermore, that unity at the end, the product of becoming, is Spirit (Geist). Spirit is the sum of Being and Nothing. Spirit is the Absolute-form of Being and Nothing, a state free of contradiction encompassing both parts united into this one object — Spirit. Moreover, to have Spirit is to have an essence; Spirit is Essence.
A question arises over how we can become if we need to Be when to Be is a product of becoming.
To-be-there is innate. Existence precedes being, and to transform this Existence into being requires the passage of the quality of being into the quality of nothing. It is indirect. We are not directly passing between being and nothing. Instead, we are passing between the quality of being, the search of being. Moreover, the void that stares at us, the quality that huddles its shadow over us all — the quality of nothing.
In reality, Being and Nothing do not exist. The dialectical development into Spirit is not the direct passage between Being and Nothing but rather the passage of the quality of being and the quality of nothing. These two representations exist in our search for Spirit from Existence but do not exist in reality. They are simply a mirror of the qualities of each, not the direct equivalent of them.
Moreover, this leads to the next aspect of my Metaphysics: Phenomenology.
Reality is not monolithic. It is different for every existing consciousness. Everything that we see is simply a representation of an objective-object. The representations that we view are simply the subjective-object — representing the innateness, the essence, and the objective-object's Spirit. However, some qualities not innate to the Spirit of an objective-object will change from individual to individual; these are the “Incidentals” of an object.
However, do these objective-objects exist? No. Their Spirit does exist, but their actual forms do not. Take the example of a strawberry. What we see when we look at a strawberry is the subjective-strawberry. It is a representation of the Spirit of some existing objective-strawberry. However, that objective-strawberry does not exist. Only its Spirit does. The qualities of what makes up a strawberry, such as a stem, the seeds, the taste, the smell, and so on, do, exist. Those qualities are the Spirit of the objective-strawberry. However, there is no existing objective-strawberry: only the qualities that make it up — its Spirit. Furthermore, the subjective-strawberry does not exist either. It is simply a possibly existing object that we assign the Spirit of the objective-strawberry to, defining it as a linguistic object. A “strawberry” represents a conceived objective-strawberry that is the innate Spirit of the idea we assign to a subjective-strawberry.
Moreover, there is another concept we need to discuss when discussing the Spirit of objective-objects: Being-for-itself and the Something-Others
Being-for-itself is the concept, the entire class of objects that we assign a multitude of objects. We could say that Being-for-itself is the Spirit that makes up the representations. “Strawberries” is a Being-for-itself; it is not a particularity but rather refers to all things considered strawberries. Those particular strawberries are called Something-others. For Being-for-itself to exist, it needs to embrace the content of the Something-others. Equally, for the Something-others to exist, they need to embrace the concept of Being-for-itself. Neither can exist independent from the other. They are a united concept that must pass between each other and embrace each other to develop their reality.
We have now developed the idea that no object can exist without a difference from another. Furthermore, they develop themselves into “Absolute-forms” free of the contradiction apparent in the so-called “Dialectical-forms.”
However, I have not yet stated that anything exists, and I did that for a reason.
This leads to another aspect of my philosophy, metaphysical nihilism. Summed up, the entirety of my philosophical system can be boiled down to this mandate — “Everything is Nothing, and Nothing is Everything.”
We cannot be sure of the existence of anything. If we assume that all we see is the representations of an objective-object that does not exist, then what does exist? Something must exist. For anything to exist, there must be something, but that something is nothing.
Everything is nothing, and nothing is everything.
Nothingness is the Absolute Being-for-itself and the only Being-for-itself. Nothingness is the only thing that we can be sure exists because, without Nothingness, existence cannot exist. Furthermore, Existence, authentically being-there, is the only thing we can be entirely sure exists. Therefore we must also be sure of Nothingness. As I stated before, objects of our perception only exist in their relation to Nothingness. The possibility that they will be flung into the void and become devoid — Nothingness. Everything engages with Nothingness to integrate their Spirit into the greater Absolute Spirit of Nothingness.
Everything apart from Nothingness is merely a Something-other. A particularity of the greater Being-for-itself (Nothingness). Everything that exists is simply an aspect of the greater Nothingness. If we logically follow the system that I have set out prior, Nothingness must embrace these particularities. Moreover, these particularities must embrace Nothingness.
Just as much that Particularities cannot exist without Nothingness. Nothingness cannot exist without particularities.
Furthermore, I posit that there are two distinct types of Spirit, the Absolute Spirit and the Particular Spirit. The Absolute Spirit is nothingness, and nothingness is the Being-for-itself which everything else is derivative of. Everything apart from the Absolute Being-for-itself (thus the Absolute Spirit) is simply a particularity of the all-inclusive Monistic whole of the Absolute Spirit. However, two particularities can also engage in Dialectical Development. Nevertheless, for that to occur, there must be a Being-for-itself. Therefore we must define a Being-for-itself outside the Shell of the Absolute Spirit (Nothingness) that I call the Particular Spirit.
The Particular Spirit is not Being-for-itself; it is still a Something-other. However, regardless, it is a representation of a conceived Being-for-itself within the realm of Something-other. However, when Dialectical Development occurs, the Being-for-itself does not integrate into a further “Itself” but instead becomes a singularity as a being. It enters the domain of the Absolute Spirit — the all-inclusive Monistic whole.
Therefore the Particular Spirit (as the representation of a conceived Being-for-itself) will not become a real Being-for-itself reserved only for the Absolute Spirit. Nevertheless, instead, the Particular Spirit will become void, a nothingness. But not an Absolute Nothingness. Instead, simply a void that remains a particularity of the Absolute Spirit of Nothingness. Spirit being simply the innateness of the objective-object when Nothingness is all that exists, we must merely define Nothingness as this Absolute and Only embodiment of the Spirit. An Absolute Spirit. Thus all Spirit is Absolute Spirit. This Particular “Spirit” must not be mistaken for the true spirit, which is reserved only for the Absolute Spirit (Nothingness) but rather a representation of the particularity of a Spirit at a specific time, a representation, a mirror of the integrity within the Absolute Spirit in part.
Thus from this, we recognize that the entire dialectical development of a particular object within another particular object is relatively simply a window into the broader dialectical development of the true Being-for-itself that is the Absolute Spirit, or Nothingness with the Particularities that make it up (The something-others) From that we recognize that the dialectical conflict of the Particular Spirit is instead an inner conflict between two Something-others engaged with one as a representation as a false Being-for-itself, a window into the true Being-for-itself that is Nothingness, or the Absolute Spirit, which themselves are an internal conflict between the Being-for-itself which from that conflicts with its inner being.
So simply put, the Being-for-itself is always at conflict with a Something-other that makes it up, which itself may be a conflict with a representative false Being-for-itself to produce a Particular Spirit which enters conflict into the true Being-for-itself, that being the Absolute Spirit (Nothingness)
The idea of nothingness and the “Void of concept” is at the core of my entire philosophical system. This is why I stated that my system could be summed up with the dictum — “Everything is Nothing, and Nothing is Everything.”
However, we must remember, philosophy is rigorous. We must ask ourselves, “What is nothing?” You may think you know the answer, but when discussing Metaphysics, we need to redefine everything we think we know; we need to start from absolute scratch.
Nothingness can be most simply defined as negation. Every “not” is utilizing Nothingness against the tide of Something-others. For example, if you say, “I am not hungry,” you utilize the Spirit of Nothingness.
If we take “hungry” as the Something-other, When you state that you are not hungry (that “not” being the negation), you negate the Something-other (Hungry). That negation of hungriness formulates a Dialectical-form rampant with contradictions. Being-for-itself (Nothingness, negation, the “not”) thus embraces the Something-other (Hungry) and from that produces the Absolute-form, the negation of Hungriness (i.e., the refusal to eat food)
This is how both Dialectical developments into Absolute Being occur, along with the utilization of Nothingness, the Absolute Spirit, the Absolute Being-for-itself.
Once again, we must be reminded of the simple dictum — “Everything is Nothing, and Nothing is Everything.”
If we dissect this statement, we can find a dialectical development within this! “Everything” would be the Something-others, just as Being is a Something-other (as it is simply a Particularity of the Monistic concept of Nothing) while Nothingness is the Being-for-itself. The Being-for-itself (Nothing) embraces the Something-others (Everything) and vice versa. The Something-others embrace the Being-for-itself. They pass between each other. They formulate an Absolute Form that encompasses the quality of Everything as a property of Nothing and Nothing as the whole-encompassing property of Everything. Thus producing the dictum that they are one, that the Something-other abandons its prior form and integrates into the Being-for-itself, the Being-for-itself equally abandoning its shell. They integrate and represent symmetry with one another. Everything is Nothing, and Nothing is Everything.
I posit that everything follows this dialectical process where the broad concept (Being-for-itself) embraces a particularity of that broad concept(Something-other). They pass back and forth, integrate, abandon their shells, and produce a synthesized Absolute Form that encompasses the entire qualities of both and the “inspired” qualities purely created by this process of conflict.
Everything from nature to ideas to broad reality follows this process of Dialectical development. The Dialectic is the broad explanation for the process of everything.
In this essay, we have built up from scratch, defining even seemingly apparent terms. Moreover, from that base, we have built up a complex philosophical system applying it from strawberries to sentences to reality itself. However, this system is not perfect; it is based on Dialectical Logic. Furthermore, for obvious reasons, the universe is not logical. It is chaotic and messy, but regardless this system can (primarily) accurately describe the function of reality. I do not claim credit for every idea in this essay. Still, I believe I have synthesized multiple philosophical systems into one cohesive explanation of reality that should hopefully be concise and accurate to describe the material and ideal world.
Perhaps this essay itself will produce a dialectical development, and we can reach a greater truth. Nevertheless, until then, this is the Introduction to My Metaphysics.
