How possible is it to be nothing? That is the question that has been going through my mind for the better part of the day. Don’t get me wrong, it is an interesting question in and of itself for the meta-physical ramifications are quite interesting to say the least. Before, I go any further, I am not suggesting any kind of formal training in philosophy but thinking about the meaning and reason of things interests me.
In common usage, nothing generally means the absence of something. So the being of nothing is that it is not something. I am not entirely sure if nothing is evil or not so let me spend some thought on being evil; what exactly does being evil mean? Some time ago I was going through an introductory book on theology and I had a mentor so to speak with whom I held discussions after reading the book. The idea that evil does not really exist struck me as odd – evil is a part of life as everyone well know: droughts, famine, epidemics, war etc. So saying that it does not exist seems like a contradiction of terms.
The explanation for asserting that evil does not exist comes from the premise or observation that anything evil is always a corruption of something that is good – either too much of it or too little of it. Hence the aforementioned list would read like insufficient rain (rain is good in the right quantities), insufficient food (food is a good), absence of a cure to a disease that destroys perfectly good cells, using lethal weapons to engage with other people instead of exploring more peaceful means.
In a sense, then evil could be a corruption of something good but it also begs the question of why such corruption of good is common and pervasive? In all these the main actor(s) remains a rational being, like in the case of war and perhaps even drought and famine. There are countries on this earth where their ability to produce food is exceptionally phenomenal but even within their own borders there is still hunger. I doubt the world lacks the ability to feed itself.
So, evil is nothing hence it is not able to sustain itself in a pure form but supposedly good can sustain itself without any evil in it – I suppose that is what God is then. However, how does that contribute to idea of being nothing? The phrase “being nothing” is rather meaningless in itself in a sense that the moment you talk of being, you are already asserting an existence and so you cancel it out by stating that the being is not? I keep hoping to make sense of a much higher abstraction than the notion of being nothing in a sense that nothing can exist hence the foundation seems rather shaky.