4. Fourth Lecture: Importance of Nothingness

This is an excellent lecture for beginners interested in understanding the concept of nothingness. I often jokingly start by saying, "Nothing matters." However, as "nothingness" is highly dependent on context, I frequently refer to Kant's four quadrants from the Critique of Pure Reason (Nihil privativum - Privative Nothing, Nihil negativum - Negative Nothing, Nihil imaginarium - Imaginative Nothing, Nihil purum - Pure Nothing). This lecture provides additional background and helps broaden the understanding of the idea of nothingness.

Furthermore, we will explore the emergence of meaning from nothing. Our aim is to examine various interpretations of "nothing" and consider the contexts in which it can be understood, both philosophically and psychologically. Through this exploration, we seek to gain a deeper comprehension of how "nothing" operates in these realms and the extent to which it informs our understanding of reality.

Let us begin with a seemingly simple yet profound question: What is nothing? Answering this question requires us to clarify our standpoint within different fields and branches of knowledge. Starting with the most concrete, in the physical and scientific sense, "nothing" refers to the absence of anything physical or measurable. For instance, it may describe the state of the universe before the Big Bang. Scientifically, nothingness is also used to denote a vacuum — an area of space devoid of matter or energy. In the realm of conventional, objective reality, this concept is relatively straightforward to grasp.

The earliest notable philosophical concept of "nonbeing" originates with the pre-Socratic philosopher Parmenides. He asserted that "nonbeing" is inherently inconceivable: it cannot be thought about, spoken of, or perceived. This perspective situates us within the domains of logic and linguistics. Accordingly, Parmenides' notion of "nonbeing" can be understood as a logical construct signifying impossibility. For example, one might think of "a square triangle," "the absence of sound in silence," or "a thought that has not yet entered our minds." These represent absences and are, therefore, conceptually unattainable.

This perspective stands in contrast to the views of Hegel, who approached "nothing" more affirmatively within his dialectical framework. For Hegel, "pure nothing" was the logical counterpart to "pure being." These two categories are not fundamentally distinct but rather dynamically interconnected. Hegel saw them as complementary opposites—like two sides of the same coin. "Being" and "nothing" are not static concepts; they exist only through their relationship to one another in a process of dialectical interaction.

In Hegel's system, "pure being" is the most fundamental category of reality, encompassing all thought and existence. However, it achieves full conceptual meaning only through its negation—"pure nothing." A useful analogy is the relationship between light and darkness: light represents a positive concept (being), while darkness signifies its negation (nothing). Similarly, life finds its negation in death, and the two can only be understood in relation to one another. In Hegel's view, "pure nothing" is integral to the dialectical process that drives understanding and self-awareness. Dialectics, in this context, becomes a method for deepening our grasp of reality and ourselves.



Kant and nothingness


Kant approached "nothingness" in a manner distinct from other philosophers, considering it more spatially and categorically. He differentiated between Negative nothing (nihil negativum) and Privative nothing (nihil privativum), a distinction that is relatively straightforward to grasp.

Negative nothing refers to the denial of existence. For example, when we say, "There is nothing in the glass," we are negating the presence of anything within the glass without specifying what is absent. In this sense, "nothing" is defined by the absence of identifiable content or substance.

In contrast, Privative nothing pertains to the absence, or privation, of something specific and concrete. Darkness, for instance, is the privation of light; sickness is the privation of health; and death is the privation of life. Using the same empty glass example, the concept shifts to Privative nothing when we say, "This is a glass without water." Here, "nothing" is understood as the lack of a specific presence — in this case, water — rather than a general absence.

Although these two concepts may seem similar, understanding their distinction has significant implications, particularly from a psychological perspective. For example, Slavoj Žižek underscores the importance of identifying what an object is lacking when examining the ideological influence of the "Big Other" on an individual's symbolic order. Recognizing the difference between Kant's two types of "nothingness" — negative and privative — is crucial to understanding how societal structures shape an individual's subjective perception of reality, possibilities, and experiences of privation.

Heidegger's notion of "the nothing" (das Nichts) diverges markedly from Kant's categories and may even seem paradoxical when compared to the frameworks of Kant or Hegel. For Heidegger, "the nothing" is not the opposite of being (as in Hegel) nor the lack of something (as in Kant). Instead, "the nothing" is not an object to be grasped or analyzed but a fundamental, pervasive presence that surrounds us and underpins our awareness.

In Heidegger's thought, the world inherently contains das Nichts, which serves as the potential for all meaning and significance. This "nothingness" is not merely a void but the very condition that makes understanding and existence possible. Heidegger describes the emergence of meaning as occurring within the "clearing" (Lichtung), where das Nichtsenables things to be revealed as comprehensible and significant. In this sense, "nothingness" is not merely an absence but the foundation from which the world and its meaning are disclosed to us. By confronting and understanding "the nothing," we recognize it as the backdrop that allows the world to come into being and, therefore, as essential to our existence.


Heidegger and nothingness

Heidegger argues that Dasein (human existence) can transform "nothingness" as potential into something meaningful through action or experience. For instance, Dasein achieves a more authentic mode of being by confronting nothingness through anxiety. In Heidegger’s framework, anxiety is not merely an emotion but a profound existential state that unveils the inauthentic aspects of Dasein and calls it toward authenticity. Through this process, Dasein transitions from an "inauthentic" to an "authentic" mode of being. This transformation is closely related to individuation and the process of becoming. By engaging in self-reflection, Dasein reveals itself from the depths of nothingness, using anxiety as a catalyst for authenticity — a deeper and truer way of "being-in-the-world."

Similarly, Heidegger extends the transformative potential of nothingness to creative endeavors. An artist, for example, can harness nothingness as potential and shape it into the essence of a work of art. The resulting object embodies this essence and reveals it to spectators, enabling them to perceive something profound about the world and their understanding of it. In this way, art discloses nothingness as the foundation of potentiality, allowing us to grasp the being of things through artistic revelation.

On the other hand, technology operates differently, turning nothingness as potential into resources to be exploited and manipulated for human purposes. Where art reveals the essence of being, technology often reduces potential into a means to an end, subordinating its essence to utility.

Heidegger’s concept of nothingness also serves as a basis for understanding life and death, setting his ideas apart from those of Hegel. For Heidegger, death represents "the possibility of the absolute impossibility of any more Dasein." In this view, death is not merely the absence of life but the presence of nothingness, which serves as the horizon for understanding ourselves. Through living, Dasein absorbs and engages with nothingness as potential, culminating in the ultimate realization of that potential—death. This understanding implies that death is not an endpoint but a defining horizon through which Dasein makes sense of its existence.

As we live, self-reflection continually reveals Dasein to itself, deepening our understanding of what it means to exist. However, physical death places an absolute limit on this process, as the cessation of life ends the possibility of further self-disclosure. Paradoxically, Heidegger posits that to experience Dasein in its "absolute authenticity" would necessitate death itself, rendering such an experience inaccessible to the living. As he succinctly states, "Death prevents me from having and experiencing my own Dasein in its wholeness."

Heidegger also employs the term "original nothing" (nihil originarium) to describe the world. He asserts, "The world is the nothing that originally temporalizes itself and simply arises in and with the temporalizing (Zeitigung)." This statement underscores the interdependence between the world and human understanding. The world does not exist as an independent entity but is instead brought into being through our engagement with and comprehension of "nothingness" (Das Nichts).

This concept resonates with similar ideas expressed by other thinkers. For example, Jordan Peterson describes chaos as "the state of the world before order is imposed upon it." In this framework, human beings are agents of imposing order, transforming the void into a comprehensible experience of existence. This view aligns with Heidegger’s notion of temporalizing, where human engagement illuminates the world, revealing order and meaning out of nothingness.


A little from Sartre

Sartre argues that "nothingness" (le néant) is a fundamental feature of how we make sense of the world. He suggests that we use nothingness to define objects not by identifying their essence but by negating what they are not. Our consciousness, according to Sartre, is inherently empty; it lacks a fixed subjectivity. This emptiness allows us to negate aspects of our lives and thereby shape our identities. In essence, our choices define our lives through the things we negate.

Nothingness, then, plays a crucial role in self-understanding. Sartre famously states, "Nothingness is the possibility of negating the actuality." For him, negation is not merely an act of reflective judgment or cognition but an ontological relation to the world as a whole. It is through this negation that we define ourselves and our place in the world.

This perspective leads Sartre to the provocative description of the individual as "a being which is what it is not and is not what it is." In this view, we first define ourselves by what we are not—through negation—and then, over time, we determine who we are through our actions and choices. This encapsulates Sartre's existentialist assertion that "existence precedes essence." Human beings are not defined by any preordained essence but are continually in the process of becoming, shaping themselves through their choices, and negating what they are not. This dynamic interplay also underscores the profound responsibility each individual has for their own life.

Sartre believed that human beings are "condemned" to freedom, meaning we are perpetually faced with the burden of choice. Every decision we make — whether regarding a career, marriage, or even mundane matters—represents a negation of all other possibilities. To be "condemned" to freedom highlights the tension between our desire for unlimited freedom and the irrevocable consequences of our choices. Each choice not only limits future possibilities but also defines us by shaping our existence. Even refusing to make a choice is itself a choice, one that carries consequences. Sartre emphasizes that failing to take responsibility for our choices leads to feelings of despair and alienation.

The "nothingness" within us is a defining aspect of the human condition. Sartre refers to this state as "useless desire." Human beings, he asserts, are fundamentally incomplete, always seeking something to fill the void within. This inherent "nothingness" is intertwined with our facticity—the inescapable reality of our past experiences, physical attributes, and social circumstances. While our facticity shapes us, it also limits us, leaving us in a perpetual state of striving for what we do not have.

Sartre captures this existential predicament in his assertion, "Man is a being whose project is to be God." By this, he means that humans are constantly striving to transcend their limitations and achieve a form of completeness or perfection. However, this pursuit is ultimately futile, as the "nothingness" within us can never be fully overcome. The human condition, as Sartre sees it, is defined by this endless and unattainable striving. Consequently, we are condemned to an unsolvable state, perpetually grappling with existential anxiety as we confront the void within ourselves and the limitations of our existence.


Approaches to "Nothingness" Across Philosophical Perspectives

The approaches to "nothingness" by Sartre and Heidegger diverge significantly from that of Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard argues that one can only overcome the state of nothingness by embracing faith and discovering a deeper sense of purpose and meaning in life. For Kierkegaard, nothingness represents a state of despair and misery that can only be alleviated through faith in God.

In contrast, Sartre views nothingness as an intrinsic part of human freedom, while Heidegger sees it as the ground of potentiality and understanding. These contrasting views provide profound insights into the psychological dimensions of nothingness.

Psychological Conclusions on the Concept of Nothingness

Understanding the various concepts of nothingness leads to a multifaceted psychological conclusion. First, in understanding the world, nothingness can be perceived as potential—an untapped resource that can be shaped into meaning. Despite the constraints of one’s thrownness (Heidegger’s term for the conditions into which we are born), existential freedom remains available. Within this freedom lies the capacity to utilize nothingness to make meaningful decisions about one’s life. Denying this nothingness, and thus freedom, equates to forfeiting personal responsibility. Sartre captures this succinctly: "Freedom is what you do with what’s been done to you."

Many people perceive their lives as constrained, not by external limitations but by an internal denial of freedom — a form of self-deception. This self-deception absolves individuals of the burden of responsibility, leading them to project blame onto others. In such cases, individuals construct a subjective reality in which oppression is attributed to an external source, shaping an inauthentic self (S1 in your framework). This “inauthentic self” often becomes a shield against accountability, perpetuating stereotypical victimization narratives. Few people escape this tendency, and many would benefit from dismantling or reforming this subjectivity, starting by viewing nothingness as a source of freedom and possibility rather than despair.

Nothingness in Lacan and Žižek

Lacan and Žižek offer a psychological interpretation of nothingness that complements these philosophical insights. Their concepts revolve around the "gap" or "lack" within the subject. Lacan describes this as the division between the symbolic order (language, culture, and social constructs) and the Real (the unspeakable, inarticulable aspects of existence). Žižek extends this idea with the notion of the "invisible reminder," representing the persistent absence or void within the psyche.

This lack aligns with Kant’s "negative nothing," referring to what cannot be fully conceptualized or understood. Within the framework of subjectivity, this can correspond to the S0 level—a subconscious foundation of being that influences our actions and perceptions in ways we may not fully comprehend.

Concrete Examples of Psychological Lack

This negative nothingness manifests in everyday behaviors and decisions:

Compulsive Shopping or Eating:_. A person might shop for clothes despite financial constraints or overeat despite health concerns. These actions may stem from an unconscious attempt to fill a sense of inadequacy or insecurity. While the immediate act provides temporary relief, it often leads to rationalizations such as "I needed new clothes for work" or "I deserved a treat."
Excessive Phone Checking. Compulsively checking for notifications, even without expecting critical messages, can be driven by feelings of boredom or anxiety. This behavior temporarily alleviates these feelings, often rationalized as "waiting for an important message."Seeking New Romantic Partners. Someone in a seemingly happy relationship might seek new partners due to an unconscious fear of commitment or feelings of insecurity. This behavior, while alleviating those feelings temporarily, may later be rationalized as a search for "new friends" or a lack of connection with their current partner.

These examples illustrate how the negative nothingness within us — our lack — drives behavior and shapes subjectivity, often without conscious awareness.

This internal lack makes individuals susceptible to manipulation. Whether it is a fortune teller offering false certainty, a seminar promising quick resolution of childhood traumas, or a "last-minute offer" designed to exploit impulsivity, the void within us is fertile ground for external influence.

A Final Reflection

Nothingness, both within and around us, is far more than an absence; it is a profound and dynamic force that shapes our being and understanding. To dismiss it as inconsequential is to overlook its pervasive influence on our lives. Instead, we must engage with it thoughtfully, recognizing its potential for freedom, creativity, and self-definition while remaining vigilant against its pitfalls.