Fundamental Questions About Nothing__Imafidon

Studies / Studien / Études

OriginalPaperUDC111.82ReceivedFebruary19th,2011

Elvis ImafidonCatholicMajorSeminaryofAllSaints,DepartmentofPhilosophy,OpojiRoad,P.M.B.23,

Uhiele-Ekpoma,EdoState,[email protected]

Fundamental Questions about Nothing

AbstractThe paper attempts a philosophical critique of the insignificance and absurdity usually as-sociated with the concept of Nothing or Nothingness in everyday and scholarly discourse by paying attention to some fundamental questions about Nothing. Drawing on the rich tradition of Western and Eastern ideas and philosophies, the paper shows that the concept of Nothing is worth paying attention to, at least for the reason that it is futile not to do so. The futility of downplaying Nothingness is amply buttressed by drawing on the rich philo-sophical (and scientific) traditions of the West which though, permeated with attempts to derogate Nothingness as nonsensical, turns out to be a rich source of affirmation of the importance of the concept of nothingness in the history of ideas in general and philosophy in particular. The aim is plainly to show that the concept of nothingness is one deserving every possible attention in philosophical and social discourse.

Key wordsnothing,being,void,emptiness,metaphysics,science

Introduction

Nothing!Aglanceatadictionarysimplyrevealsthelexicographicalmeaningofthewordas“nothing:notanything”and‘Nothingness’as“thestateofbe-ingnothingorofnotexisting:emptiness”.1Itwillthereforesoundabsurdtoasksomeonetoponderabouttheconceptofnothing;foritseemsirrelevantorabsurdtodoso.But‘nothing’,‘nothingness’,‘not’,‘negation’,‘no’,‘non-be-ing’areconceptsthathavemeanings–regardlessofthemeaningattributedtothem–andareusedineverydaydiscourse.“Thereisnothing here”;“Herosefromnothing to something”;“Godcreatedallthingsfromnothing”;“Idonothaveanyreasontoliveagain”;“Inthebeginning,therewasnothing,anemptyvoid”; etc.Thenwhydoes it seemworthless to investigate the concept ofNothing?WhatreasonsaretheretotalkaboutNothing?DowemisconceiveormisusetheconceptNothingoritaffiliatesinoureverydayorscholarlydis-

1

See theChambers Universal Learners’ Dic-tionary: International Students’ Edition(Iba-dan:SpectrumBooksLtd.,1985).

SYNTHESISPHILOSOPHICA52(2/2011)pp.(309–322)

E.Imafidon,FundamentalQuestionsaboutNothing310

course?WhatthenisNothing?Istheindividualconfrontedwithnothingnessinhiseverydayexperience?ThesearefundamentalquestionsaboutNothingwhichthepaperattemptstoanswer.

Why does investigating ‘nothing’ seem worthless?

“Allroadsareblockedtoaphilosophywhichreduceseverythingtotheword‘no’.To‘no’thereisonlyoneanswerandthatis‘yes’.Nihilismhasnosubstance.Thereisnosuchthingasnot-hingness,andzerodoesnotexist.Everythingissomething.Nothingisnothing.Manlivesmorebyaffirmationthanbybread.”2

This is theviewheldbymany,evenscholarlydisciplines like scienceandphilosophy, about nothingness. Science claims to be concernwithwhat isandNothingelse.3AsMartinHeideggersays:“Sciencewanttohavenothingtodowith thenothing”.4Traditional (Western)metaphysics, following thefootprintsoftheParmenideansloganof“Beingis.Non-beingisnot”,claimsthatitisconcernedultimatelywiththestudyof‘whatis’,‘theOne’,‘Being’,‘thesubstratum’,orthe‘itis’.FollowingParmenides’claimthatBeing,theoneisandnon-Being,Becoming,Change,Motionisanillusion,traditionalmetaphysicsgivesprioritytothestudyoftheonebeingorsubstratumbecauseitassimilatesandmobilizesallthatthereisandfrownsatnon-beingandbe-coming.Whatisis;whatisnot,isnot.Nothingcomestobeandnothinggoesoutofbeing.5

ThephenomenologicaldoctrineofintentionalityhasshownthatinthinkingofNothing,thinkingwillgoagainstitsnormalprocedureofalwaysthinkingofsomethingandhencebeforcedtogoagainstitsownnature.Italsooffendsagainstreason,whenittakesLogicasthecourtofappeal,tothinkofnothing.6TheonlywayLogicorreasonallowtheuseofthepronoun‘Nothing’isasnegationor‘not’,sayintheruleofDouble Negation(~~p)orModus Tollens(pכq,~q,~p),becauseitsimplyexpressestheoppositeofwhatis.TheseclaimsmakeitseemworthlesstoarticulateorponderonNothingbe-causethe‘whatis’dominatesallspheresofdiscourse.Then,whyponderonNothing?

Why ponder on Nothing?

TheutmostimportanceandneedtotalkaboutNothingisevidentinthepre-occupation of the disciplines, schools of thought and systems that see thearticulationofnothingasworthlessbecausetheyareprimarilydrivenbytheurgetoovercomenothingness.Sciencesaysitisconcernedwith‘whatis’andhasnothingtodowithnothing-ness.Butscienceitselfisfoundedonnothing.Thebasisofscientificthinkingespeciallyinphysicstowhichscientistsarguevehementlythatallothersci-encesisrelatedandreducible,7aresubstancesorthingsthatareunobservable–subatomicparticles,thealpha,betaandgammarays,magneticfields,theNewtonian ether, etc. – butwhich are essential for explanation of empiri-cal,observablephenomenon.Infact,theyformthefundamentalandprelimi-narybasisfortheexplanationofthingsandwithoutthemscienceisnowhere.Thoughscientistswouldcontendthattheseentities,especiallytheatom,arecorporeal,itisarguablytruethattheyaremeretheoreticalconstructstosup-plementorreplace‘Nothing,’‘void’or‘emptiness’.TheatomistsofancientGreek,DemocritusandLeucippusspecifically,madeitvividthatscienceis



essentiallyfoundedonNothing,anemptyvoid.RefutingtheParmenideans,Leucippuswrote:

“Thevoidisanot-being,andnopartofwhatisisanot-being;forwhatisinthestrictsenseofthetermisanabsoluteplenum.Thisplenumhoweverisnotone;onthecontrary.Itisamanyinfiniteinnumberandinvisibleowingtotheminutenessoftheirbulk.Themanymoveinthevoid(forthereisavoid);andbycomingtogethertheyproducecoming-to-be,whilebysepara-tingtheyproducepassingaway.However,theyactandsufferactionwhenevertheychangetobeincontact(fortheretheyarenotone),andtheygeneratebybeingputtogetherandbecomeintertwined.Fromthegenuinelyone,ontheotherhand,therecouldneverhavecometobeamultiplicity,norfromthegenuinelymanyaone:thatisimpossible.”8

Theworld,accordingtoLeucippusnaytheatomists,isthusconstitutedofin-divisiblethingsmovinginanemptyvoidfromwhichbeingevolvesandvar-nishesinto.Theatomistconsciouslyendorsedthevoidtoexplainempiricalphenomenonsuchasmovement,compression,andabsorption.JohnBurnetthereforesaysthat“itisacuriousfactthattheAtomists,whoarecommonlyregardedasthegreatmaterialistsofantiquity,wereactuallythefirsttosaydistinctly that a thingmightbe realwithoutbeingabody”9butmerelyanabsoluteplenumoramatter-filledspace.Sciencethereforeisessentiallyde-pendentonthevacuumorNothingness,whichitrejects.AsPodolnysays,

“Thisomnipresentmediumcall(…)avacuum,thatisemptiness,or‘nothing’,isbynomeanssimplyacontainerofallformsandvarietyofmatter.Vacuuminfluenceseverythingitsurrounds(…),experimentsinelementaryparticlephysicsistheresultofinteractionsoftheparticleswithoneanotherandwiththevacuum(…)thelayoutofourGalaxyandtheuniverseitself,constituteacosmicwholethatisbuiltonafoundationofthevoidorvacuum.”10

The importanceof thevacuum for scientific investigation is reinforcedbymodern quantum electrodynamics. Quantum electrodynamics affirms thatan electron, proton and photon occasionally emerge spontaneously from aperfectvacuum.Andwhenthisspontaneousgenerationoccurs,thethreepar-ticlesexistforabrieftime,andthenannihilateeachotherleavingnotracebe-hind.Suchaspontaneoustemporaryemergenceofparticlesfromavacuumiscalleda‘vacuumfluctuation’anditiscommonplaceinquantumfieldtheory,accordingtowhichavacuumisnotexactlynothingbutisteemingwithall

2

VictorHugo,quotedinRoySorensen,“Noth-ingness”,The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Phi-losophy (Spring 2009 Edition), Edward N.Zalta(ed.),http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/nothingness/. Accessed May28,2009.

3

Jim I. Unah, Heidegger: Through Kant to Fundamental Ontology(Ibadan:HopePubli-cations,1997),p.236.

4

Martin Heidegger, quoted in P. Marhenke,“TheCriterionofSignificance”,in:LeonardLinsky (ed.), Semantics and the Philosophy of Language (Urbana:University of IllinoisPress,1952),p.158.

5

JimI.Unah,Even Nothing is Something. In-augural Lecture Series(Lagos:UniversityofLagosPress,2006),pp.4–5.

6

J.I.Unah,Heidegger,op. cit.,p.234ff.

7

Cf. Jack A. Aigbodioh, Philosophy of Sci-ence: Issues and Problems (Ibadan: HopePublications,1997),pp.18–19.

8

Leucippus,ascitedbyBertrandRussell,His-tory of Western Philosophy (London:GeorgeAllen&Unwin,1980),p.86.

9

AscitedbyB.Russell,loc. cit.,pp.86–87.

10

RomanPodolny, quoted in J. I.Unah,Even Nothing is Something,op. cit.,p.16.



sortsofquantumparticlescalled‘virtualparticles’thatfluctuatebetweenbe-ingandnothingness.11Thus,according toFrankW.H.Czek,“Perhaps thereasonthatthereissomethinginsteadofnothingisthatnothingisunstable”.12Thisnothing,accordingtoAlexanderVilenkin,is“astatewithnoclassicalspace-time…therealmofunrestrainedquantumgravity;itisaratherbizarrestateinwhichallourbasicnotionofspace,time,energy,entropy,etc.,losetheirmeaning.”13Itisinthissensethatquantumtheorists,usingthebigbangtheory, explain the coming-to-be of the universe simply as coming out ofnowhere completely in accordancewith the lawsof quantumphysics, andcreatesalongthewayallthematterandenergyneededtobuildtheuniverseaswenowseeit.Thisviewoftheoriginoftheuniverse,asproposedbyscholarslikeEdwardTryon,14isoftencriticisedbyclassicalphysicistsbecauseofthebelief that it violates conventional laws of physics basically that concern-ingtheconservationofmassandenergy.However,quantumphysicistslikeAlexanderVilenkinandAlanGuthusesthetheoryof‘inflationaryuniverse’toshowhowthisdoesnothappen.Thetheoryofaninflationaryuniversecanbestatedthus:

“First,thereisaprimalBigBang,a‘quantumtunnellingfromnothing’,andthen,afterabriefphaseof‘runawayexponentialexpansion’,theenergyaccumulatedwouldattheterminationofthisphasebecomeconvertedintomatterandradiation,andtheuniversewouldthenproceedtodevelopmoreorlessaswehavecometounderstandit.”15

Hence,unlikeclassicalphysicsthatseesthevacuumasworthlesstobeingandscientificinvestigation,quantumphysicsseethevacuumoremptyspaceastheonlyviableexplanationfortheemergenceandpassingawayofbeing.Inanotherrelatedsense,scientificinvestigations,enquiriesandresearcharequeststofillavacuum.Canyoufillwhatyoudonotacknowledge?Tothescientist,thereisalwaysanemptiness,avacuuminoneaspectoflifeoran-otherthatneedstobefilledwithsomething;anabsenceofsomething.Thisisthereasonwhyscientificresearchprogresses;thereisalwaysanabsencetobefilled.Inthissense,evensomethingbecomesnothing.Forexample,ascientistwhowishestoimproveonanautomobilebecausehefeelstherearevacuumsoremptinessthatneedstofilledisbeenconfrontedwithnothing-ness.Inthissense,itisnotthevoidfromwhichbeingevolveandpassintobutanabsenceofsomething.Whensomeonewalksintoaroomwithabedandatableandstillsays:“Thereisnothing inthisroom”,itsimplymeansthatthereisanabsenceofsomething,anon-being,ofwhathedesires.Ascientistcon-frontedwiththissituationtriestofillthevacuum.Thus,scientificinvestiga-tionisalsoaboutwhatisneededtofillthevacuumorNothing.16Buthow?Bygoingintothewildernessofthought,intonothing.Whythenshouldwenottalkaboutnothing?Scienceisthereforeintrinsicallydependentonnothing,emptinessorvacuum.JohannesKeplerisonescientistwhorecognizedthisbecausehishypothesisonhowthemooninfluencesthetidesrequiredcausedchainsinemptyspace.ButhewasquarriedforthisbyGalileowhoheldthathe(Kepler)wassillytobelievesomethinglikethis.NewtonthereforemadeanerroneoussuggestionthatthespaceofcausalchainsbetweenthemoonandtheEarthwasnotemptybutfilledwitha transparent weightless substancewhichhecalledether,arguablyatheoreticalposittoreplaceKepler’semptyspace.17

Traditional Metaphysics alsoclaimstobethestudyofultimatereality,thees-senceofBeingandNothingelse.18Havingthebeliefthat“Beingis;non-beingisnot,”andwithapassionatedisregardforvoid,emptinessornothingness,mosttraditionalmetaphysicianssoughtfortheessenceofbeing,theprimor-



dialbeingamongexistingentities.Thalesclaimeditwaswater;Anaximenesthought itwas air; in themedieval period,Godwas the primordial entity.Traditionalmetaphysicswasthusunabletocapturethetrueessenceofthingsthatevolvesbeingsandintowhichbeingspassinto.However,ifscienceorphysicsisthestudyofbeingsorthingsintheworldthat have evolved or stemmed from the subatomic particles interminglingin thevoidornothingness,metaphysics (meta ta physica) should logicallybeagoingbeyondbeings to thestudyof thenothing, thevoid, theempti-nessoressencefromwhich thingsstemfromandvanishesback into.Thisis Heidegger’s conception of metaphysics. In his What is Metaphysics, heopines that if the sciences are preoccupiedwith beings only andNothingelse, solelybeings, andbeyond that,Nothing, then ametaphysical inquiryshould bother on thisNothingwhich sciences give up as nullity.19 Hence,he reformulates themetaphysical question as “whyare therebeings ratherthanNothing?”which,hesays,isafundamentalquestion.20Inotherwords,whatisthenatureofthevacuumornothingfromwhichbeingsstemfrom?AdeepappreciationofthisradicalmetaphysicalquestionasappositelystatedbyHeideggerhelpsthemetaphysiciantorealizethat theultimatenatureorrealityofthingsisawildernessofthought,avacuumfromwhicheverything,andanythingcanevolvefrom.Itgivesrisetoaradicalmetaphysicsthatdoesnotreducethemultifacetedrealitytojustoneofitsaspect–‘realityismat-ter,’‘realityisidea’,etc.–forallofthesearemanifestationsofthevoid,ofnothing.AnaximanderisprobablyoneofthefewancientGreekphilosopherswhosemetaphysicalviewwasofthisradicalsort.Thoughnotsoadmiredinhistimeforhispositions,hehowevermaintainedthattheprimalsubstanceisinfinite,eternal,andagelessanditencompassesalltheworldsforhethoughtourworldonlyoneofmany.Theprimal substance is transformed into thevarioussubstanceswithwhichwearefamiliar,andthesearetransformedintoeachother.21Astothishemakesanimportantstatement:

“Intothatfromwhichthingstaketheirrisetheypassawayoncemore,asisordained,fortheymakereparationandsatisfactiontooneanotherfortheirinjusticeaccordingtotheorderingoftime.”22

11

SeeWilliamE.Carroll,“BigBangCosmology,QuantumTunnellingfromNothing,andCre-ation”,Laval Théologique et Philosophique,Vol.44,No.1(1988),p.60.

12

FrankW.H.Czek,quotedinJamesTrefil,The Moment of Creation(NewYork:Macmillan,1983),pp.205–206.

13

AlexanderVilenkin,quotedbyW.E.Carroll, op. cit.,p.62.

14

Edward Tryon states in “Is the Universea Vacuum Fluctuation?”, Nature, No. 246(1973),p.396,that:“InmymodelIassumethattheUniversedidindeedappearfromno-where…Contrarytowidespreadbelief,suchan event need not have violated any of theconventionallawsofphysics.”

15

W.E.Carroll,op. cit.,p.63.

16

Cf.J.I.Unah,Heidegger, op. cit.,p.236.

17

R.Sorensen,op. cit.

18

Cf.J.I.Unah,Heidegger, op. cit.,p.236ff.

19

SeeMartin Heidegger, “What isMetaphys-ics”, in: Martin Heidegger, Basic Writings, DavidFarrelKrell (ed.) (NewYork:HarperSanFrancisco,1997),pp.95–98.

20

Ibid.,p.95.

21

SeeB.Russell,op. cit.,p.46–47.

22

Anaximander,quotedinibid.,p.46.



Genuine metaphysical inquiry must therefore recognize and articulate thenon-beingdescribedbyAnaximanderasinfinite,eternalandageless,whichcausesentitiestobeandnottobe.Ifthisisthecase,whythenshouldwenottalkaboutNothing?The phenomenological doctrine of intentionality is yet another view thatseemstothreatenthearticulationofnothing.Asnotedearlier,thephenom-enological doctrineof intentionality is theview that thought is always thethoughtofsomething,notofnothing.ThisviewwasonceopinedlongagobyParmenideswhenhesaidthat“thethingthatcanbethoughtandthatforthesakeofwhichthethoughtexistsisthesame;foryoucannotfindthoughtwithoutsomethingthatis,astowhichitisuttered.”23ButitwasbroughttolimelightbythefatherofphenomenologyEdmundHusserl.Itisaquickcourtofappealforthosewhodenynothingnessoremptyvoid.ButsuchforgetthatHusserlalsoopinesthatforintentionalitytobegenuinelypossible,thesubject(ego)whodirectshisthoughttowardsanobjectmustgointotranscendence,whatHeideggercallsthefinitetranscendenceofman.24Transcendenceistheprojectionoftheegointonothingnessasafieldorregionofencountertoes-tablishandre-establishwhatis.

“Transcendencedescribestheactivityofthehumanmind,inthedomainofnothingness.Thisactivityof themindhappensas aconscious reachingoutorgoingbeyond something to theregionofnothingnesstoaffirmwhatis.Transcendenceportraysthoughtasthelocomotionofexistenceandthelawmakerofexperiences.Thoughtorconsciousnessisalwaysreachingouttosomething,alwayspassingoveralwaystranscendingbeingstotheirbeing”.25

AsHusserlsays,“itisanoutwardmovingvector”.26ConsiderKant’sexperi-enceinhisanalysisofthetranscendentalimagination.Hefoundatranscen-dentalobjectXwhichheassignedasindexzero.Hediscoverednothingnessintheseatofman’smentalpowers–thetranscendentalimagination.27Infact,intentionalityisimpossiblewithouttherecognitionandemploymentofnoth-ingness.EveninHusserl’sepoche(bracketing)whatisrequiredofus?Astateofnothingness,wherewestripourselvesofeverythingandpresupposition-lesslyencountertheobjectasitis,asitpresentitselfinastateofnothingness.Whythenwon’twearticulateNothing?Logic is another system that seems to threaten the articulation of nothing.Since its quantifier has existential import, each of its logical laws impliesthat somethingexists.For instance, theprincipleof identity:Everything isidentical to itselfentails: thereexistssomething that is identical to itself.28BertrandRussellarguesthatlogiciansarenothostiletotheideaofanemptyworldasaresourceformetaphysicians.Theydonotwanttogetinvolvedinmetaphysicaldisputes.Theyfeelthatlogicshouldbecentralwithrespecttotheexistenceofanything.29Andnothingness,reasonshows,doesnotimplytheexistenceofanything.Butlogicorreasonsupportsvibrantlynegation.InModus Tollensruleoffor-mallogic,forexample,itisstatedthat:pכq,~q,~p.Thisimpliesthat,ifpimpliesqandthereisabsenceofq,thereforethereisnop.If,forexample,wheneverrainfalls,thegroundiswet;thegroundisnotwet,then,theraindidnotfall.Logicthereforeemploysnegationinconstructingvalidstatements.Ifreasonwhichsupportsnegationinlogicisalsothemeans,andthinking,thewaytoanoriginalcomprehensionofNothinganditspossiblerevelation,thentheverypossibilityofnegationasanactofreasonandconsequentlyreasonit-self,aresomehowdependentonNothing.30Inotherwords,Nothingprecedesthenegation;itisprimordialtoit.Heideggersaysthus



“Doesthenothingexistonlybecausethenot,i.e.,negationexists?Ordonegationandthenotexist onlybecause thenothing exists?Wemaintain:Thenothing ismoreprimitive than thenotandnegation.Weknowthenothing.Thenothingisthesimplenegationofthetotalityofbeing.”31

Nothingitselfisthusaproductofreasonjustinthesamesenseasthenega-tioninlogicbutitprecedesthenegationinlogicbecauseitisitselfasimplenegationofthetotalityofbeing.Mathematics, asiblingoflogic,alsoaffirmsNothingnessoremptiness.Math-ematicscanbereconstructedintermsofsetsgiventheassumptionthatsome-thingexists.FromAwederivethesetcontainingA,thenthesetcontainingthatset,thenthesetcontainingthatlargerset,andsoon.Throughingeniousmachination,allofmathematicscanbeconstruedfromsetandcontemporarysettheoriesliketospinthisamusingstructurefromtheempty setinordernottoassume theexistenceofcontingentbeings.32Mathematics thusbases itsstructureonNothingthoughwouldprefertocallitanemptyset.Consideringtheforegoing,therefore,thearticulationofNothingisveryes-sentialandworthwhileasallpointsraisedtopreventsuchratherhelpsinabetterarticulation.WhatthenisNothing?

What then is Nothing?

“Whateverwemaymakeofit,wedoknowtheNothing,ifonlyasawordwerattleoffeveryday.Forthiscommonnothingthatglidessoinconspicuouslythroughourchatter,blanchedwiththeanemicpallorof theobvious,wecanwithouthesitating furnishevena ‘definition’.Thenothingisacompletenegationofthetotalityofbeings.”33

WecandefineNothingnessinseveralinterrelatedways.ThemostessentialoftheseisthedefinitionofNothingasthatprimordialstatefromwhichbe-ingsevolveandvanishorpassinto.ThisisthefirstsenseinwhichHeideggerusesit(theprimordialsense).Hesaysthatinthissense,itreferstoPureBe-ingwhichmakespossibletheoccurrenceofbeings.Inthisprimordialsense,Pure Being reveals itself as nothing, as an “opening of a self-concealingsheltering”.PureBeingisthoughtastheNothingwhichgrantsbeing,truthandthinking.TheNothingofbeinginthefirstprimordialsignificanceisthatfromwhichbeingsemergeandintowhichtheywithdraw.ThisistheNothingwhichisrevealedintheexperienceofdreadandtheanticipationofdeathallthroughman’sexistence.HeideggerdescribestheNothingasthegroundof

23

Parmenides,quotedinibid.,p.67.

24

M.Heidegger,op. cit.,p.105.

25

J. I. Unah, Even Nothing is Something, op. cit.,p.13.

26

EdmundHussell,quotedinibid.,p.13.

27

J. I.Unah,On Being: Discourse on the On-tology of Man (Lagos:FADECPublications,2002),p.135.

28

R.Sorensen,op. cit.

29

BertrandRussell,Introduction to Mathemati-cal Philosophy(London:GeorgeAllen&Un-win,1919),p.203.

30

J.I.Unah,Heidegger, op. cit.,p.237.

31


32

R.Sorensen,op. cit.

33




allnullityandthesealofman’sinevitablefinitude.34ThisisalsothesenseinwhichAnaximanderusesitaswehaveseenabove.Mr.Aisborn(comesintobeingfromnothingness)andMr.Adies(passesawayintonothingness).ThewayandmannerinwhichweevolveandvanishintoNothingiselabo-ratedonbythesubtractionargument.Leibnizhadnotedthattoexplainwhysomethingexists,weappealtotheexistencesofsomethingelsead infinitumuntilweregressintoNothing.ThisisoftenreferredtoasLeibniz’sLimboortheexplanatorytrap.This,accordingtothesubtractionargument,makesthepossibility of emptiness self-evident.ThomasBaldwin illustrates the argu-ment thisway. Imagineeachobjectvanishing insequence.Eventuallyyourun to three objects, twoobjects, oneobjects and thenPoof!There’s youremptyworld.35WoleSoyinkaalsoexplainsthispointaptlywhenhesays

“Myimaginationinsistedonconjuringupthis(…)primalstateofnothingwhichtheworldhasbeenbeforethecreationofanything,animateorinanimate(…)Ifoundmyselfimpelledbyacuriositytoexperiencetheabsolutestateofnon-being,of totalvoid–notrees,norocks,noskies,nootherbeings,notevenI.”36

It is in this senseof subtractionorpassingawayofbeings thatHeideggerdefinesnothingaboveasthesimplenegationofthetotalityofbeing.Whenmanfindshimself in this stateof imagination,he is ina stateofNothing-ness,awildernessofthought.Thissenseofnothingasthetotalnegationofbeingcannotbediscussedwithoutdrawingsomevitalpointsfromtheideaofsupremeemptiness,absolutenothingness,orpureexperienceasfoundinthenon-theistictraditionof(Zen)Buddhism.Thishasbeenfantasticallyandscholarlydevelopedby theKyotoschoolof Japan intoa systematicphilo-sophicalanalysisbysucheminentscholarsasNishidaKitaro,TanabeHajime,andNishitaniKeiji.ThesephilosophersareunitedbytheapplicationofBud-dhistexperiencetophilosophy.37Forexample,theworksofNishidaKitaro,oneoftheleadingscholarsoftheKyotoschool,wasessentiallydrivenbythequesttounderstandBuddhistexperienceandnotionofnothingness.38Thus,hesaysthat,

“…butatthecoreofOrientalculturethathasnourishedourancestorsforthousandsofyearsistherenothiddensomethinglike‘seeingtheformoftheformless,hearingthesoundofthesoundless’?Ourheartscannothelpbutsearchforthissortofthing.Iwouldliketoattempttoprovideaphilosophicalfoundationforthisdemand.”39

Itisonthisideathathebuildshisownsystemofphilosophyandtheseyearsof creativity saw the origin of many motifs and terms associated with theKyotoschool:basho(place)asitrelatestoabsolutenothingness,pureexperi-ence,thelogicoftopos(nothingness),theself-consciousnessoftheuniversal,action intuition, and soon.40Themost essentialof these is theconceptofabsolutenothingnessorsupremeemptiness.According toRobertE.Carter, absolutenothingness is theuniversalof alluniversals.Asaconcreteuniversal,itdetermineseverythingelseindetermin-ingitself.41Itisthatinwhichandthroughwhichtheworldandthemindalikeareilluminated.Inthissupremeemptinesswhichcanneitherbeanendnorabeginning,timevarnishesineternity,meaningisemptiedoutintruth,andabecomingisrestoredtoitssuchness.Here,nothingcanremotelyapproximatetofulfilmentbeittemporalorotherwise.42ForNishida,absolutenothingnessastheabsolutenegationofthesubstantialstandpointsubsumesthefouroldparadigmsoftheframeworkofthinkinganditsfieldfromtheancientperiodofWesternphilosophytoNietzschenamelyrelativebeing,relativenothing-ness,absolutebeing,andnihil.ForNishida,theworldfindsitsultimatelocus



inabsolutenothingness.ThisisthelogicofbashooftenseenasthecruxofNishida’sworkswherebyhebringsallthingsbacktotheir“place”inabsolutenothingness.ThislogicissupposedtodomoretoknowledgeoftheindividualquaindividualthanAristotlecould.Nishidahopestoprovethattheintuitionofabsolutenothingnessrestoresaccess to thingsin their thusness,andthattheselfisateachmomentintheprocessoftransformation,nowlosingeverytraceofitselfinnothingness,nowbloomingselflesslywiththeflowersandlikeoneofthem,nowmeetinganotherandmakingtheencounterintoitsownself.43

Absolutenothingnesscanthusbeunderstoodinthissenseasthepullofbeing,thesupremeemptinessthataccountsforthecoming-to-beandpassing-awayof things.BrianSwimmer’sassertionconcerningan“all-nourishingabyss”becomesinstructiveinthisregard:

“Theuniverseemergesoutofall-nourishingabyssnotonlyfifteenbillionyearsagobutineverymoment.Eachinstantprotonsandanti-protonsareflashingoutof,andareassuddenlyabsorbedback into, all-nourishing abyss.All-nourishing abyss then is not a thing, nor a collectionofthings,noteven,strictlyspeaking,aphysicalplace,butratherapowerthatgivesbirthandthenabsorbsexistenceatathing’sannihilation.”44

Inarelatedway,HeideggerdefinesNothingasthatwhichhitsonesfaceafterseparatingthedifferentprofilesofabeing.Nothinginthissenseisthatwhichonefindsorencounterswhenonetriestopenetratetheinteriorofbeing.Thissenseofnothingisalsoresponsibleforman’sindigentdynamismorman’snaïvehungertokeepmakingmeaningor“annihilate”whatheisforwhatheisnot.HeideggerdescribesthisNothingasDasein’s Transcendence.45Take,forinstance,apieceofelectronic,say,aradio.Dismantleitscomponentparts–thespeaker,theantenna,thewires,thecontrolswitches,thepanels,thebat-tery,etc.–whatdoyoufindleft,whathitsyou?Nothing.Nothinghitsyouinyourquesttopenetratethebeingoftheradio.

34

J.I.Unah,Heidegger, op. cit.,p.235.

35

ThomasBaldwin,“ThereMightBeNothing,”Analysis, No.56(1996),pp.231–238.

36

WoleSoyinka,The Credo of Being and Noth-ingness (Ibadan:SpectrumBooksLtd,1991),p.1.

37

DianaL.Pasulka,“Review”ofJamesW.Hei-sig’sPhilosophers of Nothingness: An Essay on the Kyoto School (Honolulu: UniversityofHawai’iPress,2001),Journal of Buddhist Ethics,No.10(2003),p.63.

38

See Yasunari Takada, Transcendental De-scent: Essays in Literature and Philosophy(Tokyo:TheUniversityofTokyoCentreforPhilosophy,2007),p.94.

39

NishidaKitaro,quotedinRobertJ.J.Wargo,The Logic of Nothingness: A Study of Nish-ida Kitaro(Honolulu:UniversityofHawai’iPress,2003),pp.2–3.

40

ThomasP.Kasulis,“Introduction”,in:R.J.J.Wargo,op. cit.,p.x.

41

Joseph S. O’Leary, “Review” of Robert E.Carter’s The Nothingness Beyond God: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Nishida Ki-taro,2nded.(St.Paul:ParagonHouse,1997),Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, Vol.29,No.1–2(2002),p.166.

42

Y.Takada,op. cit.,p.91.

43

J.S.O’Leary,op. cit.,pp.166–167.

44

Brian Swimmer, The Hidden Heart of the Cosmos: Humanity and the New Story(NewYork:OrbisBooks,1996),p.100.

45

M.Heidegger,op. cit.,p.105f.



AnothersenseofNothingorNothingnessisthatitisanabsenceofsomething.Rememberourpreviousinstanceinourdiscourseofscienceandnothingness.Someonewalksintoaroomandsays:“Thereisnothing inthisroom”evenwhenthereisabed,atableandachair.Inthissituation,nothing standsforanabsenceofwhattheindividualwants;hencethethingsintheroomarenoth-ingtohim.Hereevensomethingisnothing.Thisalsomeansthateventhe“absence”isaswellsomethingtosomeonewhoneedsit,say,someonewhoneedsthebedorthetableorthechair;henceinthiscase,evenwhatisnothingtothefirstpersonissomethingtothelatter.Thissenseiscloselyrelatedtothatexplainedabovebecausethefeelingoftheabsenceofsomethingfillsonewiththeurgetofillthevacuum,makesomethingoutofnothing.Thevastunderstandingofnothinginthissenseisresponsiblefortheflour-ishing of the philosophical movement of existentialism. Existentialist phi-losophersgenerallyrecognizeNothingnessasthesourceofdread,finitude,absurdities,facticityaswellasmeaningandexistentiality(goodfaith)ofhu-manlife.Jean-PaulSartreisoneexistentialistwhovehementlypresentstherole Nothingness plays in human existence in his Being and Nothingness.AccordingtoSartre,

“Human reality carriesnothingnesswithin itself…Man is thebeing throughwhomnothingcomesintotheworld…Thebeingbywhichnothingnesscomesintotheworldmustbeitsownnothingness…Manisalwaysseparatedbynothingnessfromhisexistence.Thebeingbywhichnothingnessarrivesintheworldisabeingsuchthatinitsbeingthenothingnessofitsbeingisinquestion.”46

Accordingtohim,whenwegoabouttheworld,wehaveexpectationswhichareoftennotfulfilled.Forexample,Pierreisnotatthecafewherewethoughtwemeethim; so there is anegation, avoid, anothingness in theplaceofPierre.WhenlookingforPierre,hislackofbeingtherebecomesanegation;everythingheseesashesearchesthepeopleandtheobjectsabouthimare‘notPierre’.Thus,Sartreassertsthat“itisevidentthatnon-beingalwaysap-pearswithinthelimitsofahumanexpectation”.47Understandingman,whichisthecardinalfocusofexistentialphilosophy,isthereforecentredonthear-ticulationoftheNothingnessofthebeingofman.InExistentialism,Nothing-nessisviewedfromthebiasofself-existence,asthegroundofself-existenceandthus,assomethinglyingoutsideoftheexistenceoftheselffromwhichtheself-drawsmeaning,thatis,self-existenceissuspendedinNothingness.48ButdoesmanencountertheNothing?

How does man encounter Nothing?

Heidegger gives an apposite reply in his analysis of Dasein (his technicalnameformanasbeing-there).Accordingtohim,Daseinwhoisessentiallyfinitefindsitselfstationedin

“themidstofbeingsthatarerevealedsomehowasawhole.Intheendanessentialdistinctionprevailsbetweencomprehendingtheensembleofbeingsinthemselvesandfindingoneselfinthemidstofbeingsasawhole.Theformerisimpossibleinprinciple.Thelatterhappensallthetimeinourexistence.Itdoesseemasthoughweclingtothisorthatparticularbeing,preciselyinoureverydaypreoccupation,asthoughwewerecompletelyabandonedtothisorthatregionofbeing.”49

InthisexistenceofDasein,ishebroughtfacetofacewithNothing?Heis,Heideggersays,inthemoodofanxiety.50AccordingtoHeidegger,

“Anxietyrevealsthenothing.We‘hover’inanxiety.Moreprecisely,anxietyleavesushangingbecauseitinducestheslippingawayofbeingsasawhole.Thisimpliesthatweourselves(…)



inthemidstofbeingsslipawayfromourselves(…)Anxietyrobsusofspeech.Becausebeingsasawholeslipaway,sothatjustthenothingcrowdsround,inthefaceofanxietyallutterancesofthe‘is’fallssilent.”51

TheNothingdoesnotrevealitselfasabeing.ratheritisencountered‘atonewith’beingsbymakingitselfknownwithbeingsandinbeingsexpresslyasaslippingawayofthewhole.52ItisinthisrevelationofNothingthatDasein as existenceapproachandpenetratebeingsand relatewithbeings throughtranscendence into nothing.Heideggersaysaptly,

“Da-sein means:beingheldoutintothenothing.Holdingitselfoutintothenothing,Daseinisineachcasealreadybeyondbeingsasawhole.Thisbeingbeyondbeingswecall‘transcendence’.IfinthegroundofitsessenceDaseinwerenottranscending,whichnowmeans,ifitwerenotinadvanceholdingitselfoutintothenothing,thenitcouldneverberelatedtobeingsnoteventoitself.Withouttheoriginalrevelationofthenothing,noselfhoodandnofreedom.”53

BeingheldoutintotheNothingmakesmanalieutenantofNothing.Wearesofinitethatourfinitudeentrenchesitselfinexistencethatourmostproperanddeeplimitationsrefusestoyieldtoourfreedom.ButbeingheldintoNoth-ing, isoursurpassingofbeingsasawhole. It is transcendence.54Nothing,Heideggersays,isthereforesameasBeing.“PureNothingandPureBeingarethereforethesame”.55BeingandNothingbelongtogetherbecauseBeingitselfisessentiallytemporal(finite)andreveals,itselfonlyinthetranscend-enceofDaseinwhichisheldoutintoNothing.Thusthesayingintraditionmetaphysicalthinkingthat:ex nihilo nihil fit – fromnothing,nothingcomestobe–Heideggersays,canthusberewrittenasex nihilo omne ens qua ens fit –fromtheNothingallbeingsasbeingscometobe.56ThisreaffirmsoncemorethatNothingisthepullfromwherethingsevolvefromandonceagainvanishesinto.Andhumanexistencecanonlyrelatetobeingsifitholdsitselfoutintothenothingviatranscendence.Transcendence, therefore, is theprojectionofDasein intonothingnessasafieldorregionofencountertoestablishandre-establishwhatis.Transcend-encedescribestheactivityofDaseininthedomainofnothingness.Thisac-tivityhappensasaconsciousreachingoutorgoingbeyondsomethingtotheregionofnothing toaffirmwhat is.Transcendenceportrays thoughtas thelocomotiveofexistenceandthelawmakerofexperience.Transcendenceit-selfistheactofformingrelations;theactofformingnotionofunity,notionsofuniversality,andnotionsofhomogeneity.With thesenotionscreatedbytranscendenceweareabletorelateonethingtoanother,connectoneexperi-encetoanothertomakethemmeaningful.Transcendencealsoreferstotheindigenthungerornativedynamisminmanwhichmakeshimrestlessand

46

Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness,trans.byHazelE.Barnes(London:RoutledgePublishers,1958),p.45.

47

Ibid.,p.41.

48

See Keiji Nishitani, Religion and Nothing-ness, trans.J.V.Breagt(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1982),p.55ff.

49

M.Heidegger,op.cit.,p.101.

50

Seeibid.,pp.102–103.

51

Ibid.,p.103.

52

Ibid.,p.104.

53

Ibid.,pp.105–106.

54

Ibid.,p.108.

55

Ibid.,p.110.

56

Seeibid.,pp.109–111.



eccentric,andwhichpropelshimtomovefromonestateofaffairstoanother,fromnowtonotnow,fromwhatistowhatisnot.57

Summarily,inHeidegger’swords:

“Thenothingcomesforwardneitherforitselfnornexttobeings,towhichitwould,asitwere,adhere,forhumanexistencethenothingmakespossibletheopenednessofbeingsassuch.Thenothingdoesnotmerelyserveasthecounterconceptofbeings;ratheritoriginallybelongstotheessentialunfoldingassuch.IntheBeingofbeings,thenihilationofthenothingoccurs(…)Daseincanrelateitselftobeingsonlybyholdingitselfoutintothenothingandcanexistonlythus…”58

Heidegger’sconceptoftranscendenceissimilartoNishida’sconceptofpureexperiencewhichinvolvessilenceandmeditationthatleadstoopenness.TheBuddhistcultureofmeditationandsilencefindspureexperienceas“anoriginalexperienceoutofwhichconceptualexperienceiscarved”.59Hence,absolutenothingnessisknownnotbyconceptualanalysisbutbyaleapbeyondconcep-tualthinking,wherebythetensionsandantinomiesofconceptualthinkingisre-solved.60Everythingclarifiesitselftoitselfthroughpureexperienceanditdoessowithinthenothingnesswhereinpureexperienceitselfarises.61Therealmofabsoluteemptinessthereforebecomestherealmofthepresentmomentofpureexperienceandinthismoment,thetruebeingofthingscometolight.However, theconceptofNothingorNothingness iscommonlymisusedormisconceivedineverydaydiscourse.Inwhatways?

How do we misconceive Nothing?

Themainmisconceptionaboutnothingisthenihilisticuseoftheconceptaris-ingfromitslexicographicalmeaningas‘notanythingthatis’.Fromthefore-going,wecansayaptlythatwhatis,isinseparablefromthequestionofwhatisnot;whatis,ispartlynothingandnothingispartlysomething.ButwhenweseeNothingastheabsoluteabsenceofanything,asnotanythingthatis,wemisconceivethatnihilitingpowerofnothingthroughwhichsomethingcomes-to-betomeanastateof‘notanything’,ofcompleteinsignificance.ThisisthewayandmannerinwhichWesternEuropeanculturehasmostlyconceivedtheconceptofNothingandtheresulthasbeenpurelynihilisticandinhuman.Thisisvividlyreflectedintheattitudeofthemajorworldreligions;the“theotherisnothing(notanythingatall)”attitude.Thewayandmannerthesereligionsareaffecting,dictatingordeterminingthelifeofmodernmanissuchthatproducenihilisticconsequences.Theseaggressiveandconqueringreligionsfollowthispatternofthinking:“Itisthisoneornothingelse”;“Itisthiswayornootherway”.Thisisnihilismper excellence.62Andwhatdoesthisresultto?Erasethattemple!Demolishthatmosque!Obliteratethatcathedral!Flattenthatshrine!Eachmajorreligion(andevensectswithinthesamereligion)appearsperiodi-callyincapableoffindingitsowncentreexceptbytheactofreducingtheotherinsomeformortheothertonothing.Thishasbeenthesourceofso-calledholywars;ithasencouragedscientificandtechnologicalimprovementofweaponsandmachineryofwarfareinthequestforauniversalnegation,Armageddon,whichwillwipeeveryotherexcept“theclosesttoGod”tonothing.63

This“theotherisNothingortheotherisnotanythingthatis”attitudeisalsoresponsibleforthetribal,racialandethnicconflictsmanhaswitnessedandisstillwitnessingaroundtheglobetoday.TheRwandanHutu-Tutsicrisis,theNigerianIfe-ModakekecrisesandtherecentJos-Plateaucrisesareinstancesofattemptstoreducetheothertonotanythingthatis.Themisconceptionofthenihilisticpowerofnothingisthereforeofdrasticnegativeeffectsonmanandtheworldatlarge.



Anothermisconception of nothing is themistake of construing it as being‘something’,abeingouttherelikeeveryotherthing,whichcouldbeanuna-voidableresultintheuncarefulexaminationofNothing;thatis,thequestionastothewhatandwhereofNothingturnsthethinginquestionintoitsopposite.Thequestiondeprivesitselfofitsownobject.64ThisquesttofindNothingasabeingoutthereaccountsforwhymostscholarsdenytheneedforthearticula-tionofNothing.ItisforthisreasonthatHeideggersaysthatNothing,whichhecallsPureBeing isnotanexistingentityneither is itGodbut that fromwhichallexistingentitiesderivetheirbeingfromanditiseverywhere.ItisthegroundofanythingthatissincewecannotutterbeingwithoutNothing.Therefore,fromtheforegoing,animproperuseoftheconceptofNothingnesswillhavenegativeconsequencesforthesocietyatlarge.

Concluding remarks

In the attemptmade above to give apposite answers to some fundamentalquestions aboutnothingness, anecessaryendeavour resulting from the ab-surdityoftenattributedtoitinscholarshipandeverydaydiscourse,itbecomesobviousthatalthoughthehistoryofideasissuffusedwithadeliberateattemptto treatnothingnessasnonsensicalandabsurd, it endsupprovidinga richtraditionof thought that is intertwinedand interlockedwith the samecon-cept.Hence,fromthehistoryofideas–philosophicalscientific,orotherwise– these salientpointsabout theconcept ‘Nothing’or ‘Nothingness’canbedrawn: (i)Nothing is theprimordiality, thepool fromwhich thingsevolveintheirdiverseandmultifacetedformsandonceagainvanishordisappearorwithdrawinto.(ii)Nothingisthatwhichhitsusinthefaceinourquesttopenetratetheinteriorofbeingandaccountsforman’shungertomakemean-ingoutofexistence.(iii)Nothingalsoentailstheabsenceofsomethingevenamongstmany.Heresomethingthatisofnointeresttousbecomesnothingwhichwe try tomake somethingout of, and that nothing aswell remainssomethingbecauseitisanabsencethatisanon-absencetoanother.InthissenseofNothing,oneismovedtofill thevacuum,tomakesomethingoutofnothing.(iv)Nothingismisconceivedas‘notanythingthatis’.(v)Noth-ingisnotanexistingentitybutthatpoolwhichallbeingsderivetheirbeingfrom;thewildernessofthoughtorprimordialsubstancethatmanifestsasbothbeingandnon-being.Tobesure, theseviewsdonotexhaust thenotionofnothingnessascanbefoundinthehistoryofthoughtneitherdotheyexplaincomprehensivelytheconsequencessuchviewhaveforsocialrelations.Theysimplyprovidealeewaytounravellingmoreaboutnothingnessinrelationtothesocialimplicationsofsuchviewsheldaboutnothingness.

57

See J. I. Unah, Even Nothing is Something, op. cit.,pp.13–14.

58

M.Heidegger, op. cit.,p.106.

59

Robert E. Carter, The Nothingness Beyond God: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Nishida Kitaro (St. Paul: Paragon House,1997),p.8.

60

J.S.O’Leary,op. cit.,p.166.

61

R.E.Carter,op. cit.,p.177.

62

J.I.Unah,On Being, op. cit.,p.131.

63

Cf.J.I.Unah,Even Nothing is Something, op. cit.,pp.14–21.

64




Elvis Imafidon

FundamtentalnapitanjaoNičemu

SažetakU ovom radu se pokušava filozofski kritizirati beznačajnost i apsurdnost koje su obično vezana uz pojam Ničega ili Ništavnosti u svakodnevnom kao i akademskom diskursu obraćajući pozor-nost na neka fundamentalna pitanja o Ničemu. Oslanjajući se na bogatu tradiciju zapadnih i istočnih ideja i filozofija, rad pokazuje da je pojam Ničega vrijedan pažnje, barem utoliko što je uzaludno to ne činiti. Uzaludnost umanjivanja značaja tog pojma je uvelike poduprta bogatom filozofskom i znanstvenom tradicijom Zapada koja se, iako prožeta pokušajima derogiranja Ni-štavnosti kao besmislene, pokazuje kao vrijedan izvor afirmacije važnosti tog pojma u povijesti ideja općenito, a posebno u filozofiji. Cilj rada je jednostavno pokazati da pojam Ništavnosti zaslužuje svaku moguću pažnju u filozofskom i socijalnom diskursu.

Ključneriječiništa,bitak,ništavilo,praznina,metafizika,znanost

Elvis Imafidon

Fundamentale Fragen nach dem Nichts

ZusammenfassungDas Paper macht einen Kritikversuch der Bedeutungslosigkeit sowie Absurdität, die im alltäg-lichen wie auch gelehrten Diskurs gemeinhin mit der Vorstellung vom Nichts bzw. der Nich-tigkeit assoziiert werden, indem es gewissen grundlegenden Fragen zum Nichts Beachtung schenkt. Sich auf die ergiebige Tradition der okzidentalischen und orientalischen Ideen und Philosophien stützend, hält die vorliegende Arbeit den Begriff des Nichts insofern für achtens-wert, als das Gegenteil vergeblich wäre. Die Verfehltheit des Herunterspielens der Nichtigkeit ist reichlich untermauert mittels einer ertragreichen philosophischen (und wissenschaftlichen) Tradition des Westens, die sich, obgleich von Schmälerungsversuchen der Nichtigkeit als unsin-nig durchwoben, als eine auserlesene Fundgrube der Wichtigkeitsaffirmation des Begriffs der Nichtigkeit erzeigt, quer durch die Geschichte der Ideen in genere und namentlich in der Philo-sophie. Der Artikel setzt sich zum Ziel, zu verdeutlichen, dass dem Nichtigkeitsbegriff jegliche erdenkliche Aufmerksamkeit innerhalb des philosophischen und sozialen Diskurses zukommt.

SchlüsselwörterNichts,Sein,Nichtigkeit,Leere,Metaphysik,Wissenschaft

Elvis Imafidon

Questions fondamentales sur Rien

RésuméL’article tente, en prêtant l’attention à quelques questions fondamentales sur Rien, une critique philosophique de l’insignifiance et de l’absurdité qui sont habituellement associées, dans le discours quotidien et académique, au concept de Rien ou de Néant. S’appuyant sur la riche tradition des idées et des philosophies occidentales et orientales, l’article montre que le concept de Rien mérite qu’on y prête attention ne serait-ce que parce qu’il est vain de ne pas le faire. La futilité de la minimisation du Néant est amplement étayée en faisant appel aux riches tradi-tions philosophiques (et scientifiques) de l’Occident qui, quoique imprégnées par des tentatives de déprécier le Néant comme étant absurde, s’avèrent être une riche source d’affirmation et d’importance du concept de néant dans l’histoire des idées en général et de la philosophie en particulier. L’objectif est simplement de montrer que le concept de néant mérite toute attention possible dans le discours philosophique et social.

Mots-clésrien,être,vide,néant,métaphysique,science

Fundamental Questions About Nothing__Imafidon

Documents

Transcript of Fundamental Questions About Nothing__Imafidon