Philosophical Fun 1

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end, amen. With 2 projects I have on the way, that is to comment on My Catholic Faith and to comment on Metaphilosophy from IEP, I want to have some philosophical fun. This philosophical fun is simply to mess with concepts or deconstruct them in my own deconstructive way, ignoring Derrida’s philosophy. Though with the current pain I am in, I am not sure if I can have maximum philosophical fun, or if any at all. It prevents me from writing well or doing anything really, as there is so much pain.

As the pain continues and I lose sight of meaning in my emotions and feelings, I know I must resort to my intellectual vision. Yet this intellect is burdened by my passions and pains. These pains prevent me from writing anything. I have one dream, to establish philosophy as a rigorous science, or perhaps more accurately a formal science. It means to have philosophy as a science with a clear framework and structure of thought. Once philosophy is done, then science can follow suit according to the dogmatic principles of philosophy as informed by Revelation, Natural and Supernatural.

Let us destroy everything. In an intellectual and imaginary manner that is. What I mean is let us remove every thought possible and arrive at the purity of reality as it was in the beginning. We indeed have our own philosophical project consisting in commentary upon commentary. However, this is just a side work for my own fun. As opposed to the earlier philosophical project which is meant to have a higher goal, this work is just for fun. Though it is not impossible for this work to supersede the greater project in terms of productivity. What if every thought and object is removed from existence such that there is absolutely nothing.

However, such destruction will involve the destruction of our selves and our mind, which is a necessary condition for cognition and thought. Therefore, we ought to not involve ourselves in our own self destruction and instead observe the results of destruction from beyond the event. The end result of destruction is called A. Yes the other project describes the eternity and indestructibility of God, so assuming that is true, this A should possess identical attributes and properties to God. However, as long as that is not proven, there shall be no God and just A.

So in the void of existence, what we have is this unknown object called A. The destruction of all things should have destroyed even the label of A. However, we somehow managed to access this object of A, and give it the label of A. This seems to tell us something about the nature of our mind and relationships between objects and the mind. However, the label A is not intrinsic to the object, but it is our relationship to that mysterious object. Since we actually have no idea what A is, every label we apply to it is for a lack of a better word to describe our understanding of A.

When the entirety of reality is destroyed, there is left either nothing or something which cannot be destroyed. So assuming the destruction of everything, we must investigate the limits of the destruction. We have A, which is the result of negating and eliminating everything, including things which do not exist. So this A cannot be said to contain anything which exists or do not exist. In any sense of the words. Therefore, A is absolutely nothing and void. It is not even empty space, as empty space is still something which exists and is real. Granted it is definable by a lack of other things, but in itself it is a thing.

A is already incomprehensible enough. However, we have not explored the true depths of A. This is because I have foreseen my own understanding and for that reason I know that there is something worse than our current understanding of A. A is nothing, but what does nothing mean? Nothing means first, the actual nothingness of all things. Second, the nothingness of any possibility for A the nothing to become anything other than itself. Therefore, relative to us mutables, A is immutable as it has truly nothing. Yet this is a problem, the problem is that A has become something definable. It is in fact describable.

This is a problem of all destruction, as the result, however empty it is, is recognizable from a distant point of existence by our minds and is thus always capable of creating relationships with the mind. In fact, we can say in a weird way that A exists. A possesses existence, in fact, existence is the only thing which A possess. If A does not even possess existence, then this is where things get a bit insane. The state of A, or object of A, or whatever of A, is precisely the negation of all other things. If this negation does not exist, it is to say it is not true, and it is to say that the negation of A, that is what is not A, must exist.

So what happens if A is not nothing, but also not anything? A can be both nothing and something, that is suprarationally possible. Yet, if A is both nothing and something, then it is both nothing and something. We have just achieved definability again for A. Therefore, whatever A is, A has to be A. A cannot be not A, nor can there be a union between A and not A, it is simply a change of labels of definitions towards the precise reality which exists. However, if we truly want to destroy everything, and destroy definability, it still leads to a definable thing, defined by its lack of definability. This is the final level of destruction, which still cannot be destroyed. In conclusion, total destruction is impossible, there is something left always, and so what cannot be destroyed even by the thwarting of all logical laws is called a necessary existence or being.

The necessary being is not immediately God. In fact we do not know what is the necessary being. However we do know that the necessary being is that aspect of reality which remains even after repeated destructions of itself. Let us try a fine game of destruction. What does it mean for something to be undefinable? It is to have no clear attributes or properties. It is first, absolutely simple, it has no definable properties (meaning parts) nor attributes (parts), so any label we give this necessary being is something which is the consequence of our relationship with that necessary being, it is a product of our perception in other words, and not anything intrinsic to the being.

Anything possessing multiple parts, properties, or even attributes in addition to the fundamental necessity is finite and composite. As they are defined and limited by the properties in addition to necessity, and they are composed of necessity and some other thing. The necessary being has no other thing than its own necessity, but what other word that can be attributed to the necessary being? It is existence. The necessary being possess existence without any other attributes or properties. Therefore, to say anything is undefinable is to equate it with that necessary existence which is both simple and infinite. This is the basic description of the Judeo-Christian God, so congratulations me, we have created God, again.

What we have learned is that God and thus everything which shares His existence has to be themselves, they cannot be both themselves and not themselves. This is known as the Law of Identity or A=A. Then, either A is, or A is not, this can be derived from Identity and we have non-contradiction. Finally it is necessary that A possess a particular state, be it is, is not, or both in an incomprehensible way. This is the excluded middle. These laws are not enough to produce anything else, but it is a neat way to know what reality has to be, that it has to be itself and nothing else. I think this is sufficient philosophical fun for this writing. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end, amen.