Talk:Nothing

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2022
removing typos in 1st paragraph 3rd line Brookdogboy (talk) 05:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ARandomName123 (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hegel and Nothing
The section regarding Hegel and nothing contains many, however common, misconceptions on Hegelian philosophy. Most notably, it defines Hegelian Dialectics as Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis. This is incorrect (the Dialectic page's Hegelian section actually has a very well-written description of Hegel's logic). A more accurate system preserving the current structure would be to define Hegel's dialectic as Abstract/Negative/Concrete. This would better match Hegel's actual writing style and better incorporate the process as a subsection to the philosophical notion of "nothing". Alternatively, it may be better to rewrite this section from Hegel's view of Nothing as part of his Science of Logic. However, I do not know what the best form for that information would be. Davedbo (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The section is currently sourced to the philosopher Bertrand Russell's book. The first thing that is needed before changing anything is a source verifying these claims and a rationale why it is more authoritative than Russell. Is Hegel's take on this objectively different, or is this just a matter of terminology? SpinningSpark 15:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I should be more clear. My primary concern with this section is that it does not primarily address "Nothing" as a Hegelian Concept. Instead, it very briefly summarizes the beginning of Russell's summary on Hegel, which is not specific to "Nothing", encompasses the dialectic, and is potentially a misunderstanding of Hegel's logic. The more that I try to work out a functioning draft, I think a detailed explication of the dialectic would be beyond the scope of the article on "Nothing". Instead, I think a better goal of this section should be to define how Hegel approaches "Nothing" as a concept.
 * 1. There is a problem with the citation. I may have a different edition than is cited, but in reviewing Russell's book he does not ascribe Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis to Logic of Science. However, the current Wikipedia entry states, "According to Hegel in Science of Logic, the dialectical methods consists of three steps." In Russell's History of Western, not only does he not cite Science of Logic, he calls his phrasing of Hegel implicit, "The above argument [his phrasing of the dialectic] is not explicit in Hegel, but is implicit in his system, as in that of many other metaphysicians." (pp. 733) Again, I think that defining Hegel's system of logic is outside of the scope of this entry (and handled well in the Wikipedia entry on Dialectics), and instead we should focus on Hegel's definition and usage of "Nothing". I would like to note that Russell's summary of Hegel would likely not be coherent with Hegel's notion of "Nothing", anyway, as Hegel "sublates" Nothing to draw conclusions about its meaning. The current entry on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains why Hegel saw his system as distinct and preferable to prior dialectics. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/
 * 1a. Here is a citation from the current entry on Dialectics as an alternative source,
 * Fichte introduced into German philosophy the three-step of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, using these three terms. Schelling took up this terminology. Hegel did not. He never once used these three terms together to designate three stages in an argument or account in any of his books. And they do not help us understand his Phenomenology, his Logic, or his philosophy of history; they impede any open-minded comprehension of what he does by forcing it into a scheme which was available to him and which he deliberately spurned [...] The mechanical formalism [...] Hegel derides expressly and at some length in the preface to the Phenomenology
 * (Kaufman, Hegel: A Reinterpretation, 1966, Anchor Books, p. 154)
 * 2. I think a better formulation for this section would either A) simply define "nothing" as seen by Hegel, or B) define "nothing" and situate it within his argument "Pure being and pure nothing are, therefore, the same." (pp. 82) While option B would no doubt contain more information, the formulation of this argument (at least in my best attempts) requires extensive elaboration. I am happy to put together a draft or outline, as long as it would not be beyond the aims of Wikipedia. Davedbo (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to post a draft here, but I have now confirmed your account so you should be able to edit the article directly yourself if you so wish. The cite to Russell is pages 701 to 704 in the cited edition, not 733.  This is the first four pages on the chapter on Hegel.  Russell uses the thesis/antithesis/synthesis terminology without explicitly crediting it to Hegel.  He seems to simply treat it as synonymous with Hegel's actual terms.  Kaufmann's book is available on the Internet Archive here but you will need to create an account to read it.  It does confirm your claim that Hegel never used these terms.  I don't think it would be appropriate to delve too deeply into Hegel's philosophy here.  The section needs to be kept fairly brief so that we don't run into WP:UNDUE problems. SpinningSpark 12:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to post a draft here, but I have now confirmed your account so you should be able to edit the article directly yourself if you so wish. The cite to Russell is pages 701 to 704 in the cited edition, not 733.  This is the first four pages on the chapter on Hegel.  Russell uses the thesis/antithesis/synthesis terminology without explicitly crediting it to Hegel.  He seems to simply treat it as synonymous with Hegel's actual terms.  Kaufmann's book is available on the Internet Archive here but you will need to create an account to read it.  It does confirm your claim that Hegel never used these terms.  I don't think it would be appropriate to delve too deeply into Hegel's philosophy here.  The section needs to be kept fairly brief so that we don't run into WP:UNDUE problems. SpinningSpark 12:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2023
I saw there was a grammatical mistake in the page. VaideFNOnYT (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: You need to specify the change you want to be made in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Nothing
nothing. Removed edit orotection 2A02:810D:8080:2780:D1B2:1C41:7BF8:F51E (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * If you have an edit you want done, you can request it.
 * Simply write, then describe the change you want made. Paradoctor (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disturb you but how did you rotate your name in your signature? that looks great! Usersnipedname (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Try Paradoctor Paradoctor (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * thanks a lot 👍 Usersnipedname (nag me/stalk me ) 17:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Stop blanking the page!
Just don't, it achieves nothing and annoys a lot of people Speakerset (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, there is a reason why this page is indefinitely extended-protected, as users including those who are autoconfirmed have been blanking this page for so many years. Sometimes extended-confirmed users do that as well for the laughs. If you need to edit this page, feel free to submit an edit request and someone will be here to respond shortly. Cyclonical (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I also agree, I do not understand what they accomplish when they blank it, it is not even funny. A slice of 8.5397342 (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I kind of want to just edit the page and put and the beginning of it 'Do not delete the contents of this page, it is not funny and it is uncalled for.' I wish that this would be obvious but clearly it is not. A slice of 8.5397342 (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @A slice of 8.5397342 People don't usually do such notices. Because even mentioning this type of vandalism can encourage users to try it out for themselves. See this page here: Don't stuff beans up your nose. I know it's a silly essay, of course, but it covers this whole topic, and it's quite an interesting read to say the least. Cyclonical (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)