Metaphysics

...

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murders of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? (Nietzsche and Kaufmann, 1974).[a]

Nietzsche warns us of the emergence of unprecedented nihilism and upcoming invention of the sacred games. Since then many metaphysical system of ideologies attempt to replace the God or the Transcendental signified. Both Heideggerian and Carnapean projects can be construed as the search for meaningful existence and affirmation of being—Heidegger’s association with Nazi party and Carnap’s veneration of science attest that both believed firmly in their philosophical deliberation. [b]Now the platform is now laid out for us to discuss the relationship between Nothing or Nothingness and metaphysical endeavours.

Our existential condition calls for comprehension of Nothing in the sphere metaphysical system of ideas that covertly or overly govern our engagement with the world regardless of its Truth-value. [c]It is noteworthy that for Heidegger the Nothing extends beyond what is iterated in what is metaphysics? Carnap, on the other hand, in Elimination of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language, similar to an addicted gambler, is concerned with the method of gambling rather than realising that the actual undertaking is dubious. [d]Language falls short when the reality is stretched beyond what logic can handle. [e]An intoxicated lover and the astronaut inspired with aw, both confirm the latter and fail to express the immensity of emotions in syntactical pattern, for example[f]. To cage human consciousness and dismiss philosophical notions merely on basis of logic is not a sign of sagacity or sophistication. [g]Heidegger in response to Carnap, in Pathmarks, repeats Edmund Husserl’s insistence that rigour and exactitude are not the same thing (cf, Heidegger1998b: 83,96,235,263). Moreover, Chase and Reynolds (2003:28) argue that Carnap overlooks the Heideggerian project.[h] In Being and Time Heidegger delineates Being from beings that is sometimes referred to as ontico-ontological difference (Chase and Reynolds, 2003:28). From Heidegger’s perspective ontic beings such as objects and entities of the world have Being in common and Being is their condition of possibility or allows beings to be as entities. And there is ontological difference between Being and beings despite manifestation of Being in beings; they are not the same thing. In plain words, Being itself is not an entity. Heidegger assumes this understanding in what is metaphysics?, thus argues that Being, by definition, is non-being, for it cannot be located in the world. And claims that the western philosophical tradition has ignored this lack, this Nothing or Nothingness that is Being; hence it could not detach itself of the implications ever since (Chase and Reynolds, 2003:28). Furthermore, the language that is employed by Heidegger, while discussing Nothing, is tied with expressive problems vis–à–vis Being. Thus he does not objectify it as Being or define since it will treat it as entity and he would be forgetting the ontological difference. Heidegger also tried to write Being for differentiation purpose (Chase and Reynolds, 2003:28). And in What is Metaphysics? Heidegger language works beyond the realm of logic because for him any primacy accorded to logic and law of non-contradiction also involves a forgetting of the meaning of Being. “ The commonly cited ground of all thinking, the proposition that contradiction is to be avoided, universal logic itself, lay low this question” (Heidegger, 1996).[i]

In short, if the claim “Nothing itself Nihilates” is contextualised within Heidegger’s oeuvre, Nothing, perhaps, is partially intelligible and the Heideggerian enterprise becomes more meaningful. However, Carnap’s critique somewhat implies that project of Being and Time is irrelevant.[j] Because it is understandable that Carnap’s aim was to outline the limits and capability of language[k]; nevertheless, he does briefly mention the necessity of art and music even venerates Nietzsche for his artistic and philosophical exposition. But Carnap fails to realise that it is metaphysics that is precondition to human life and not language. One could argue that language evolved much later and yet the mode of being [l]has not altered fundamentally yet the superficial and conventional setting of the world has. Primitive human, less self-conscious[m], attributed every cause and effect to a God or Gods and the mythologies are evidence to this.[n] On another note, metaphysics is essentially above art and music, since it presupposes all human engagements despite its validity or being aware of our own adherence to metaphysical presuppositions.[o] Also, it is wise to pay attention to broader significance of Heidegger’s claim in relation to the Nothing, as Chase and Reynolds have. Besides, it is absolutely necessary to pinpoint the significance of metaphysics above all else. [p]Being-in-the-world underlies a set of metaphysical propositions, either formal —religious doctrines — or informal: uncritical adherence to established norm: capitalism or fascism [q]etc. Any exposition that take into consideration the significance of Nothing or Nothingness should be applauded to. For acknowledging the necessity for expressing such phenomena reminds us of the abyss upon which we have built our lifeworld: empty, dark, hallow, yet significant and absurdly meaningful. Is this reminder not significant to human existence? Carnap might object and argue that such expression could be uniquely done in art and music. Moreover, He might claim that to include any expression of metaphysical nonsense will lead to confusion and disorientation.

At one level of analysis this objection is rather plausible. Conventionally, we ought to converse and communicate with clarity and without ambiguity and nonsensicality in order to make progress in sciences and so forth. But at another and profound level of understanding, that is beyond good and evil, our lifeworld is floats upon take for granted ideals and a set of propositions that are metaphysically at times justifiable. [r]For instance, contemporary worldview is based on materialism. [s]This shallow interpretation of universe indirectly influences our movement-in-the-world and affects our choices. A materialist may donate their body to science due to having the scientific understanding that soul is non-existent.[t] Whereas, in medieval times the existence of soul was a