this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2026
126 points (93.8% liked)
memes
21532 readers
1691 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Being is a state, Nothing is a state.
Being (something) and (being) Nothing are opposites.
Yet Becoming requires you to go from Nothing to something, or stop Being something to introduce enough Nothing to become something new.
Long time since I read Hegel though, might be hogwash.
Why not just becoming something from a state of something else...nothing is not really required for becoming.
It's probably said from the point, that something that was, theough changes, becomes less that. So, more nothing, in a way.
But really, I love philosophyzing, but I'm not calling it a job. It's like a monk is just sitting there chilling, but if you confront him about not working, he will answer: "bitch, it took me years to learn chilling that hard!"
Don't short change yourself, with enough time, effort and application you could still get a degree in the humanities, that's basically what they do :p
For real, philosophy was mostly around before we figured out empiricism and scientific methods. People had to think quite a lot to come up with models that made internal and validated sense even without evidence. And we still have a lot of stuff we can't test, but that we wonder about (theology, paranormal stuff, hard solipsism, "before" Big Bang, etc), we just have stricter requirements and more developed methods that we call differently.
am 46. wishing i had a degree in philosophy, just because i love it. started a commonplace book. reading Baudrillard currently. Enjoying it!
Exciting stuff! Hope you share some of your insights as you go, philosophy is much underrated!
thanks!
This is could both be an excellent question or a less interesting one :p
The less interesting one is answered that by Being you are, and thus cannot become. (Just as u/toofpic describes)
The excellent question is why we can't Become when already Being, or why we can't unBecome from Nothing. For that we'd have to read more Hegel to understand the context.
Why is it that when you take away from Nothing, nothing happens? It makes intuitive sense, but why must it be so? What would happen if it weren't so?
Hegel suggests that the qualities of purest Being and purest Nothing are the same, and that's why the Becoming takes them into eachother.
I don't know that that's useful though, someone else care to explain?
How do you take away from nothing? What are you taking?
The concept of Nothingness?
Or closer to Hegel: Nothing is the lack of all differentiation and content, and thus absolutely undifferentiated.
Pure Being is without further differentiation, it has no diversity within itself, and is thus also absolutely undifferentiated.
Nothing is pure Being (and with some other arguments the reverse is also true), they are inseparable and unseparated, yet distinct. And Hegel argues that the Becoming is the movement of one into the other, distinguishing them for a moment only to be resolved again.
You can read it yourself in Hegel's Science of Logic
Gibberish