About the Everything in the Nothing (Metaphysics)

‘In this world which we enter, appearing from nowhere, and from which we disappear into a nowhere, Being and Appearing coincide.’

-Hannah Arendt, The Life of the Mind (1978)


I felt rather delighted when I read the quote of Hannah Arendt, because there is nothing as subjective as metaphysics itself and the interpretation of it.
Neither of us can be wrong.
However neither of us can be right.
I will try to interpret the quote of Arendt from my own perspective and then try to extend this quote by adding some of my own philosophy into it.

The quote begins with the rather confusing words ‘In the world which we enter’.
That sentence alone has so much more meaning behind it than the 6 words you read, that I had to mention it separately.
We enter from somewhere in this world.
So there is another place above our observation from where we enter our current world.
Another place that is the big nowhere and nothing, which decides to throw us into our current world and then when it’s over, it takes us back to a nowhere.
What is Arendt actually trying to say that happens the moment we are thrown inside this world?
What do we gain the second we are born which we lacked before our birth?
To be born is the moment that human observation takes place.
The moment you come out of a nowhere and you suddenly experience everything.
I can only imagine that as a huge climax in which the senses experience perception.
Breathing for the first time after being inside the water for too long.
Breathing after being inside a nowhere for too long.

Her quote references to the Greek philosopher Epicures, who said this:
When we are, the death isn’t, when death is then we aren’t.
Death is the disappearance of our human senses.
When we die, those human sense die with us.
This means that we end up back inside the big black ocean of nothing and cease to experience every form of human senses.
Arendt says that being born and dying coincide, the only difference is that it takes place in another order.
And I have to give her right, subjectively speaking.
But that’s the whole point.
It is very subjective.

One thing that triggered me a lot is that Arendt made a difference between the world, which we enter and the world where we enter from.
She clearly states a world which we enter, which means we enter from another place: namely a nowhere.
A separation.
Objective and subjective.
Objectivity is the transcendent place that we cannot experience the moment we are born and we go back to the moment we die.
This is the place where no form of subjectivity exist.
Subjectivity is perspective in which we use human senses as means to process information we gain from the outside world which we then experience all individually in a unique way.
That is exactly the crucial point that I want to discuss.

And just like Arendt I believe in this separation.
Everything around us is the result of the human subjectivity and what the humans decide to do having this subjectivity.
And the most difficult part of subjectivity is the fact that it’s so unique.
So extremely unique that no other person can process the world the way you can process it.
It can even be problematic.
People can start having arguments due to this because they just don’t understand the world of one’s experience.
That’s what I want to bring across; be aware of your uniqueness and even embrace it.
But do know that due to being so unique, it is also very difficult to deal with subjectivity when you are confronted to understand another person’s perception.

So beginning by the begin.
What does it mean to be born?
Being born is exactly the separation in which the objective essence that exists in all of us is released into the world.
When that takes place, our objectivity is gone for the rest of our life until death.
Why is that?
Because we have been released from the transcendent into the worldly.
We have been put inside a complex thinking machine that always wears pink subjective glasses and experiences the world from his own perspective.
Leave the homo sapiens for what it is.
We are the homo subjectiva.

But going back to Arendt, can we even be sure that we come from a nowhere and disappear in a nowhere?
I can firmly say, I don’t know for sure.
Having my subjectivity as limit I can only use my unlimited fantasy as to how that objective world looks like.
The limit of my subjectivity can also mean the limit of how I experience world using my senses as means.
And this the subjectivity has layer over it of the education we have gained through life and the people we have met.
With other words, it is a big nowhere solely because our subjectivity doesn’t allow us to know for sure what the transcendent is.
But what gives me grip is the capacity to use the ratio, which is for me the closest form of gaining pure knowledge even though I’m sure that it still stained by my subjectivity.

What I noticed furthermore is that Arendt only quotes about being born and dying, she skips a big part I would like to discuss.
Namely life.
What does it mean to live knowing the theory I brought about earlier?
What is that one force that makes us want to keep going?
It’s something I would like to indicate with the term ‘Love’.
This term does not have the meaning we would add to it nowadays
Love it the undeniable urge to go back to the objective world.
And until that we live our lives with one goal and that is to experience our subjectivity to its fullest.
When we are thrown into this world we wear our subjective glasses from the very beginning until the very end.
This subjective view is being layered and twisted and turned by our environment, but never changed.
What subjectivity does is taking those experiences inside the big complex machine and then experience its very own and unique way.
Putting two people in exactly the same home and letting them grow up exactly the same way does not program them into robots who are copies of one another because they solely grew up in the same environment.
I am definitely not denying that our environment plays a huge part in who we become later.
Our environment gives us the options of showing different way of how to experience our subjectivity.
But it never changes the subjectivity we already have.
However, what plays an even bigger role is our perspective and what we decide to do with the data that we gain from the outside inside our complex machine.
That is exactly the point I everyone to be aware of.
Know that you are unique and try to understand that the other is.
Never make the foolish mistake of trying to put yourself in the shoes of another.
You simply can’t; there is always a big layer of subjectivity that denies us the possibility of seeing everything the same way.
The only solution would be pure logical thinking or ratio.
This comes closest to thinking in a transcendent manner; namely by analysing every little thing you think up and knowing that this is something you gained from your environment.
Or by throwing away all dogmas and prejudices you gained in all these years.
Only this way we can try to understand each other the best.
And if you don’t have the capacity to do so, try to embrace subjectivity on its own for what it is and leave the other to do the same.

The last point I will discuss is death.
When we die, all of these collective experiences come together into the big nothing (or objective world) and I by God do not know what happens there, but I can conclude one thing that we have in this world which does not exist in the objective world.
Subjectivity.
The capacity to experience life from a unique perspective.
The only thing that does is the absolute opposite of the objective world.
Experiencing ourselves and our uniqueness.

Concluding as Arendt said, we disappear into a nowhere.
And I fully agree on calling it a nowhere.
Losing the capacity of seeing the world from our own perspective gives us the opportunity to call it a nowhere, because that is exactly what it is in our eyes for whom nothing except the subjective world is known until death unites us.

On the Existence of Words (Metaphysics)

The fish trap exists because of the fish.  Once you've gotten the fish you can forget the trap.  The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit.  Once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare.  Words exist because of meaning.  Once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words.  Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him?  (~ Chuang  Tzu)

When I read the list of Serious Quotes for the first time, I found it rather curious to come across Chuang Tzu.

Mainly because he was the only Eastern name between all the Western names I read.

Never have I heard of him before, nor am I familiar with his works and his philosophy.

I thought to myself, how can I ever write an essay about him?

Firstly because I assume the original language was Chinese.

That’s where the problem already began. 

The real essence of a philosophical quote loses its value the moment it has been translated.

What I am reading right now in English, is a broken version of the original language.

The real essence of his thoughts have been lost in translation.

How can I even comment on a quote that has lost his real value and meaning?

It can easily be compared with Plato’s Dialogues.

The moment the original Greek is translated to English (or any other language for that matter), the originality and the real essence of the dialogues get lost.

Never can someone translate the Greek word pronèsis to its original meaning and content.

So my problem is, that language is a mean of a group of people to communicate.

Language is something subjective gained by empirical observation.

The words we use daily are the results of subjective and empirical observation of our environment.

I see my environment differently, the people who created the language I use today see it differently than Chuang Tzu did.

We can never fully understand the essence, because our words just are slightly different in subjectivity and observation of our reality.

The only logical thing for me would be to start learning Chinese to understand the essence of Chuang Tzu’s philosophy.

However since it’s obviously time consuming, I will continue my essay commenting on the content of the quote rather than the language or origin. 

I have stated before that I am not familiar with Eastern philosophy, my interpretation may differ from that of student who is, in fact, familiar with it.

This said, I will comment on the quote using my Western philosophy that I have gained until now, because after all that’s what I am familiar with.

I can already say that it’s a rather curious encounter of two different worlds coming together. 

Due to the lack of context can I never imagine in what circumstances Chuang Tzu has spoken these words.

The logic behind it is rather clear; something exists because of something else. When you have it, you can forget the means.

A philosophical quote that is rather easy to follow.

The slow and easy structure gives a nice example of what he means using daily objects as reference.

The fish trap exists because of the fish.  Once you've gotten the fish you can forget the trap. 

It begins with an easy construction, using something the student or reader is familiar with so he or she doesn’t feel lost in Chuang Tzu’s philosophy right away.

The idea gets repeated again so the reader fully can associate with the thought, once again with something they’re familiar with and that is outside of themselves so it’s less abstract and easier to follow; namely a rabbit trap. 

With the previous two comparisons in their head it suddenly reaches its climax:

Words exist because of meaning.  Once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. 

The similarity between the fish trap and words sounds so logical, because of the same structure used again, that it causes the reader to follow along with the conclusion:

Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him?

This is rather fascinating but also very confusing.

How can someone talk without words?

The reader goes back and forth.

Reads the lines again.

Compares the sentences.

Nevertheless the structure in both sentences causes the reader to think that Chuang Tzu is right, leaving the conclusion open to debate.

And this is where it gets interesting;

Chuang Tzu has left it at such an amazing cliffhanger that it causes the reader to think about it thoroughly.

If this was indeed his goal, he has reached it. 

It got me thinking.

How can these premises causes such a strange and still (so I thought at first) logical conclusion? 

Firstly,

The structure is so distracting that it takes the attention of the reader to the way it has been written, rather than the two totally different things being compared.

Looking at it thoroughly, and with that I mean only with your regard on the content and nothing else, the conclusion doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. 

I’ll expand on this.

In the quote means and goal are being compared.

The one is the means and it functions for a goal.

The fish trap exists because of the fish. 

The means is the fish trap.

The goal is the fish (or rather to catch fish).

Once you've gotten the fish you can forget the trap.

This is a very crucial sentence.

Take note that once you have gotten the fish you can forget the trap.

With other words:

Forgetting the trap has no further influence on the entity of the fish.

The same goes with the rabbit snare.

The interesting part begins when Chuang Tzu starts comparing it to words.

I’ll just use the same principal of analyzing the sentence.

Words exist because of meaning.   

The means are the words.

The goal is the meaning.

Once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words.

Referring to my past analysis, you can easily conclude that this sentence doesn’t make any sense.

The is no consistency with the previous statement made, which is sad because that’s the point of comparing two things.

Forgetting the words does have further influence on the meaning.

Why is that?

It’s stated in his conclusion.

Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him? 

Forgetting the means backfires the goal.

Forgetting the means does have further influence on the goal, because it damages the entity of the goal.

Forgetting words will stop the spread of meaning, which is what Chuang Tzu is trying to get across.

He is contradicting himself so horribly by comparing these sentences, especially since his conclusion proves how inconsistent the quote actually is.

But to be honest.

After I was done analyzing it, it struck me that I couldn’t possibly possess more logic than an Eastern philosopher.

I am speculating on the off chance that Chuang Tzu might be aware of this flaw.

Even so that he did it on purpose, with as only goal to make his statement seem simple yet very powerful and impressive at the same time.

If you put all the logic aside and solely look at what he is trying to say, you can easily conclude that what he is trying to bring across is a simple yet very powerful idea that is understandable for everyone who is trying to follow his philosophy.

The idea behind it is very simple.

Where can I find a man who has achieved so much in life, that he understands the full meaning behind every single word?

Let me grab back on the beginning of my essay. 

As I said before words and meaning are connected to language, which is something you can gain by experiencing it.

When you see a flower, you experience and acknowledge its existence.

The object is then named using empirical observation.

Keeping that in mind, we can all conclude that someone who knows the meaning behind every word, to the extent that he has according to Chuang Tzu forgotten the words itself, has experienced a lot in life.

And that is the most crucial point Chuang Tzu is trying to bring across.

One must try to experience a lot in life to the extent that he understands the meaning behind every single word. 

Met Gesloten Ogen (Dutch mini story by yours truly)

Tik tik.

Zo begon het eerste geluid dat ik buiten mezelf opmerkte.

Tik tik tik.

Het klonk hetzelfde als wanneer ik me afzette van de glazen bodem en mezelf de lucht inschoot.

Tik… TIK…

Soms klonk het dof, andere keren wat ruwer.

Het begon met zacht getik dat ik nauwelijks kon opvangen terwijl ik mezelf langzaam heen en weer liet slingeren in mijn glazen schommel.

Mijn voeten zetten zich zachtjes af en ik schoot de lucht in.

Weer zetten ze zich af en ik ging naar achteren.

Ik hoorde niks en ik zag niks, ik voelde enkel de tintelingen in mijn buik veroorzaakt door mijn eigen bewegingen.

Ik voelde mijn haar tegen mijn armen slaan terwijl ik me afzette en mezelf weer de lucht in lanceerde.

Tik…tak…

Naar voren…Naar achter.

Soms had ik mijn ogen open en andere keren weer gesloten, maar altijd zag ik hetzelfde.

Niks.

Ik slingerde mezelf de lucht in en voelde de tintelingen.

Net stond ik op het punt mijn voeten weer af te zetten tegen de koude bodem, totdat ik iets zachts hoorde.

Het zou aan me voorbij zijn gegaan, als ik op dat moment met mijn voeten het geluid had overstemd met mijn gestamp tegen de bodem.

Maar ik hoorde het net, weliswaar zacht, maar toch.

Tik…

Mijn hoofd schoot automatisch richting het geluid, maar het bleef verder stil.

En ik slingerde weer verder.

Mijn voeten raakten de bodem.

Tik…Tak…

En ik was weer in de lucht, niet wetend of mijn ogen open of gesloten waren.

Tik… Tak…

Daar was het weer! Het getik dat niet van mij kwam, maar van iets anders.

Ik stopte en stapte van mijn schommel af.

Dit keer kon ik het duidelijker horen, het was erg vaag, erg zacht en nauwelijks op te merken, maar ik hoorde het.

Des te dichterbij ik kwam, des te harder het werd.

Nog steeds amper te horen.

Maar toch.

Mijn armen schoten naar voren om naar het geluid te tasten, maar ik voelde enkel koud en hard materiaal tegen m’n vingertoppen aan.

Het was stil.

Mijn voeten maakten een snelle pirouette en ik wilde terugkeren naar mijn veilige schommel.

Ik hunkerde er al naar om mijn voeten met snelle passen af te zetten van de koude bodem.

Eventjes niet opgesloten zijn.

Eventjes vrij zijn.

Tik. Tak.

Ik hoorde het geklop weer, alleen had het dit keer een andere toon.

Veel dwingender dan eerst.

Ik zette mijn handen tegen de koude muren en mijn oor ertegen aan.

Het geluid werd harder en harder.

Tik. Tak.

Met korte scherpe slagen drong het door de koude muur heen.

Ik kon het nu duidelijk en helder horen.

Het was niet enkel hier, ik hoorde het overal.

Tik.TAK.

De korte klop klonk nu als een vuistslag hard tegen de muur aan.

Ik schrok van het geluid en deinsde achteruit.

TIK. TAK.

Ik hoorde het nu overal bonzen, luid en duidelijk liet het monster zijn stem horen.

Dieper en krachtiger sloeg het tegen de koude glazen wanden van mijn wereld aan.

Ik sloeg mijn handen over mijn oren en begon te schreeuwen.

Nee! Stop! Alsjeblieft, laat het ophouden.

Maar het eens zo zachte getik ging onverbiddelijk over in zware slagen.

Ik voelde warm vocht uit mijn oren komen en mijn handen voelden nat aan.

Met eigen kracht probeerde ik het te stoppen door terug te slaan.

Mijn armen werden week en moe.

Mijn vingers voelden dun en slap aan.

En mijn nagels leken met elke slag steeds verder af te breken.

Maar het lawaai was zo oorverdovend hard dat mij geen andere keus restte dan zelf de bron van het geluid op te zoeken en uit te schakelen.

Opeens was er gekraak.

Ik voelde scherpe stukken door mijn vingers dringen, maar dat weerhield me er niet van om er een triomfantelijk gevoel op na te houden.

De muur brak langzamerhand.

Scherven vielen op de harde bodem en spleten in duizend kleine kristallen.

De scherven vielen en het getik ging door.

Ik dacht terug aan de momenten waarop ik heen en weer schommelde.

Tik.

Afzetten en naar voren.

Tak.

Afzetten en naar achter.

Mijn gedachtestroom werd opeens stopgezet door een fel licht.

Ik vergat de pijn in mijn oren en hield mijn handen voor mijn ogen.

Het licht was sterk en drong tot de achterkant van mijn schedel door, maar ik wilde aanschouwen wat het getik veroorzaakte.

Ik keek naar de grond en zag mijn handen met een vreemde felle kleur, die erg afstak van mijn huidskleur die te vergelijken was met het felle licht.

Beiden even bleek en even helder.

Ik keek langzaam omhoog en keek naar een goudkleurig licht en voor mijn voeten de scherven kristallen.

Het licht gaf het duizend kleuren.

Tik… Tak…

Zo traden mijn voeten over de scherven richting het licht.

Het was fel en ik richtte mijn ogen naar de grond, maar langzamerhand durfde ik mijn blik omhoog te werpen.

Ik zag wit.

Ik zag licht.

Ik zag een wit licht dat mij de tranen in de ogen deed springen.

Dit gevoel wilde ik koesteren.

Nog eventjes dit gevoel koesteren.

Nog heel eventjes…

Ik draaide me om en keek terug naar mijn oude schommel.

Mijn pupillen vergrootten en ik sloeg een hand voor de mond.

Ik zag een zwart gedierte onder mijn schommel rusten.

De armen waren dikker dan het lijf waar mijn schommel op stond en de ogen waren teruggerold in de kassen.

Het was stil.

Doodstil.

Niet bang zijn, zei ik tegen mezelf.

Het is dood.

Met het breken van deze bol is het dood.

Dánkzij het breken van mijn bol is het dood.

Ik ben nu veilig.

Tik…

Tak…

Mijn voeten stapten over de nieuwe bodem.

Tik.

Tak.

Mijn gestalte verliet de glazen wereld naar het licht.

The Fault in Our School System (Ethics)

‘Non vitae sed scholae discimus.’

A pun on the famous Latin expression ‘non scholae sed vitae discimus’, which means that we do not learn the most important things by sitting in a classroom and listening to what the teacher has to tell, but that we as human beings only truly can gain knowledge by experiencing certain events that we want to know more about.

Seneca has made a pun by switching two words, namely vitae and scholae and with this play on words Seneca’s thoughts about the role that school plays in our society is shown.  

Let me first start by explaining how I interpret this quote.

Non vitae sed scholae discimus.

Meaning

We are taught for the schoolroom, not for life.

Seneca’s way of thinking was the total opposite of what was custom during that time. (I mean the period of the Roman Empire)

Seneca has switched the words to make his statement clear as to how much his environment has changed.

In his eyes we do not longer learn what is the right thing for ourselves to do in life.

We purely do whatever our teachers expect us to.

Basically, Seneca believes that society is based on whoever can shout the right answer in class without the learning process having any further result in the life of the relevant student.

Contrary to the previous belief that it is not important what we exactly learn at school, it is important to know how to apply the knowledge to our own life.

The things we used to learn were not given to us by our teachers, it was all solely self-discovery by experiencing every bit of knowledge.

Of course the teachers played a huge role in the process to gain this knowledge.

However, it was not important to be the best in class and do the best in class to be able to make the best of your own life.

Seneca is stating that this kind of self-discovery by experiencing the interesting things in life has been pushed aside.

It is all about learning what the school system expects us to answer.

Shout the right answer the loudest in the classroom.

We should do as is expected of us, if we want to aspire anything higher in life, because after all according to Seneca: society has taught us that we do not learn anything by experiencing itself.

After all the right answer is there, with your teacher. We should only learn that and simply repeat what we have been told.

Even though I do not know in what circumstances this quote was written, I can understand which direction Seneca is going with these kind of thoughts, because I observe the same kind of behavior in my own learning environment. (The fact that school comes before the self-development of the talents a person possess.)

I only think Seneca has missed a crucial point.

You see, Seneca states that not P but Q is the case. (We only learn for school and not for life.)

I rather think that these two, almost opposite seen, cases actually walk hand in hand during the life of a student.

In my eyes because of P à Q is possible. (Because of school we are able to experience life to its fullest.)

Seneca states that in order for one to take place (P) the other should be absent (Q).

We solely learn for the schoolroom, not for life.

If learning for the schoolroom is taking place, automatically the learning of life isn’t.

My opinion is that we will be able to experience life to its fullest with a proper education system.

Let me substantiate what I mean by this.

The reason we are in the classroom to begin with is because we see ourselves as people who have not experienced enough in life to fully be developed into our superego (=the person we want to be, opposite to who we are right now) and we don’t understand everything that we come across to.

We are still infants, who look at the world with big astonished eyes.

There is someone needed to help this infant and help him develop those potentials in which he excels.

This is the teacher who does not want his students to push their self-development aside and solely repeat after him.

This teacher is not denying their potential knowledge, this teacher is not trying to suppress the talents of his students in the suffocating classroom.

This teacher acknowledges the talents of his student and his purpose is to lead these students to the end of their learning journey, so they can become self-conscious people who will use the knowledge of the teacher to experience life to its fullest and thereby understand every event that befalls them.

This teacher adds meaning to the these experiences.

Therefor he should be seen as a companion, who travels behind the infant and helps him whenever this child is looking surprised at the big world, because he has potential to understand life but not the knowledge of how to develop these talents to its fullest and thereby experiencing life.

Thereby I believe that because of the schoolroom we are not shutting ourselves off.

Not at all.

We gain knowledge from people who have experienced everything we want to experience.

It is only logical to embrace this knowledge given to us as aid in our further journey what is known as life.

The question is, why is self-development so important?

Why should we gain experiences?

I see this as the most important thing in the ladder of life.

Next to the primary needs like water, food, shelter and secondary needs like family, friends and respect, the highest form of living, in my eyes, is the chance to be able to live in an environment where self-development is possible so we can know who the real me is the accept it and love it for who it is.

Even though I showed you earlier that there were a few points that I didn’t agree with, I can’t say that Seneca is fully wrong.

What I showed you earlier was, in my eyes, the ideal school system and I honestly don’t think our school system is that bad.

However it is slightly much more focused on getting high grades and passing classes.

I am not stating this as a bad thing, not at all actually.

There needs to be some kind of motivation in order to do the thing you should do.

In exchange you get recognition for your intelligence in the form of a grade.

This can make a person happy or rather self-satisfied, because, if done correctly, the student knows that this grade only tests him on his ability to understand what he wanted to understand and he passed it, therefor he has gained more knowledge and will have more experience in the rest of his life by using this gained knowledge.

Unfortunately this kind of behavior is lacking.

When a student gets bad grades, he or she is rather frustrated about the fact that he’ll get trouble with his environment than the fact that he didn’t learn as much from the class as he should have, because that is after all what should be the priority when you go to school.

Theoretically speaking things like cheating and fooling your teacher shouldn’t take place at all, just in order to achieve a high grade.

By doing this you’re forgetting the reason you’re going to school.

But it is understandable.

The classroom is full of anxious students, who know that their intelligence will only be recognized in the form of a grade, typed down in big black letters on their grade card.

I am not saying grades should be banned, it is an encouraging way for the students to show what they know.

However I think that method on which our school system is based emphasizes grades and repetitive behavior a lot more than the self-development of the students.

Achieving the opposite of what school is intended for, not self-development but exactly as Seneca stated.

Non vitae, sed scholae discere

Not learning for life, but for school.