Introduction
The notion of "nothing" is one of the most important and controversial concepts in the history of humankind. Its etymology is quite interesting for the consideration, as it can discover many different mysteries associated with the most important knowledge. In addition, the perception of this idea may be absolutely controversial, if one talks about it in the framework of religion and philosophy of the Western and the Eastern worlds. Nothing is everything, and at the same time, it is a lack of everything. This notion has a negative connotation; it denies everything to what it is opposed; moreover, it is impossible to oppose it to anything. Nothing is not a subject or something existent; it cannot be used by itself or act as an antonym. This notion is directly related to the concept of "being," and it is no less important in this framework since it refers to the basis of being itself. Thus, the analysis of the etymology, meaning, and significance of such a thing as "nothing" may discover that its importance is much greater than all the other concepts in the field of religion and philosophy are.
Origin and Meaning of "Nothing" in Philosophy and Religion
A study of the word, the notion, or the concept such as "nothing" is quite complex. If one considers the "nothing" as a word, one can talk about its negative nature. The negative prefix indicates that the word can be contrasted with something or even everything. The notion of 'nothing' can also be considered as a category, which means the absence of something else. It can mean the absence of all: objects, properties, etc. The opposite of nothing is something, or being. In this regard, the term "nothing" in many cases is used synonymously with the term "non-existence", although the category of "non-existence" is more abstract, e.g., in terms of lack of space and time. Nothingness is opposed to being, while nothing is something different. In the history of philosophy, the category nothingness appears as opposed to being for the first time in the ontological doctrine of Parmenides. According to Parmenides, non-existence is an unacceptable idea because there is simply no non-existence in an ontological sense (Price & Johnson, 2012, p. 90). On this basis, it can be seen that initially the concept arose in the context of the ontological doctrine and was not independent. Later, it was used in the teaching of Democritus, who dwelled on the atoms and the void (Price & Johnson, 2012, p. 159). In his writings, the concept of "nothing" was completely separate and independent from the category of non-existence. According to the atomistic doctrine of Democritus, nothing has ontological status and, moreover, is a necessary condition for such phenomena and concepts as "quantity", "movement", and "change" (Price & Johnson, 2012, p. 159).
However, from the standpoint of Plato's theory of knowledge, nothing is identical to nothingness. In addition to the opposition of being and nothingness, Plato introduced the concept of Superbeing, which was interpreted as something single (Heidegger, Fried & Polt, 2000, pp. 58-59). In this regard, it became possible to consider the non-existence not only as the absence of a negative, but also as a positive overcoming of life. Actually, 'nothing' has acquired an ethical coloring and become identified with evil for the first time in Neoplatonism category (Price & Johnson, 2012, p. 160). Similarly, the category of evil was given an ontological status, i.e. the evil as a lack or absence of existence. This idea has been fully used in the Christian doctrine. It also has parallels in the Hindu philosophy, where evil acts as a measure of the corruption of things or the same as the degree of the presence of non-existence in them (Price & Johnson, 2012, p. 178). As for the broader opposition, one should speak about "nothing" as a concept, or a notion. Many oppose this concept to everything that can exist within the framework of metaphysics. Many believe that nothing is an absolute oblivion that is opposed to being. Anyway, if one considers this concept more widely, analyzing all its manifestations and meanings, it will take a lot of time to organize all found materials in one study. The reason for such a wide range of values and attitudes of this concept lies in its use. It has been known since the ancient times to the present day. At the same time, this concept remains a mystery. "Nothing" causes many contradictions, which can be seen in the different religions and philosophical theories.
Heidegger rightly recognizes that a person imagines nothing when s/he asks about it (Heidegger, Fried & Polt, 2000, p. 23). A person imagines something abstract or shaped, or even a whole category. At the same time, nothing denies everything. The question about nothing contains an answer; hence, a person can come to a paradoxical result, fall into the trap of language, thereby giving the concept of nothing different characteristics. According to Heidegger, humanity is able to present things as a whole, and thus is able to present the denial of all things, the result of which will be the concept of nothingness (Heidegger, Fried & Polt, 2000, pp. 28-29). However, can a person imagine "nothing" meaningfully, no matter how paradoxical this statement is? Can a person survive and existentially comprehend "nothing"? Heidegger writes that there are such human "attitudes", which reopen "nothing" (Heidegger, Fried & Polt, 2000, p. 20). It can be found in the existential experience of the fundamental horror. Such a state of fear is not the fear of something specific, i.e., it is not a fear of something that exists (Heidegger, Fried & Polt, 2000, p. 24). This is a very rare feeling of a universal horror when a person loses support in existence and drowns in the emptiness and indifference.
Therefore, if one considers the philosophy of existentialism in more detail, it can help to make a better and deeper analysis of the concept of "nothing". As Heidegger says, fear is not a way of understanding nothing, because nothing is given to man with the fullness of comprehension of being as something that eludes him (Heidegger, Fried & Polt, 2000, pp. 178-179). In order to comprehend the fullness of being, one must act beyond it; therefore, one should enter nothing. For Heidegger, anthropological value of nothing consists mainly in the fact that human presence is a direct bond with nothing (Heidegger, Fried & Polt, 2000, p. 57). In my understanding, the meaning of this statement is that only people are able to comprehend things in general, but in order to comprehend it, they have to get away from it into nothing. Heidegger calls this ability to act beyond the limits of existence the transcendence (Cifone, 2014, p. 260). A human is the only creature that is transcending.
In addition, Sartre suggested some interesting thoughts about the meaning of the concept of "nothing". According to his writings, a nothing does not have a self-existence; a being precedes nothing and justifies it (Cifone, 2014, p. 238). Nothing cannot be understood outside of being; it can be understood in terms of being. In general, according to Sartre's viewpoint, it is a man who is the being, by which nothing is brought into the world, because only he is able to put the 'what' into question, thus suggesting the possibility of both positive and negative responses. In this sense, I assume that nothing cannot exist ontologically, as it is only a structural element of human consciousness. Therefore, if one talks about the use of the concept of "nothing" in philosophy, it can be said that it has received fairly widespread use, as well as the versatile interpretation. Since antiquity, the notion of "nothing" has evolved to a concept, which is able to detect all human existence. It is also possible to start the analysis of "nothing" in the framework of religion, where it also plays a controversial but extremely important role.
There are two main meanings of "nothing" in the philosophical and theological concepts. Firstly, it is the meaning that is contained in the statements such as "God is everything and nothing"; here "nothing" means the absence of identification of God with something concrete (Price & Johnson, 2012, p. 147). Secondly, it is the meaning that is present in the statement "the origin of things, and of God himself, is nothingness"; here there is a sense of absolute negation (Price & Johnson, 2012, p. 147). Therefore, one cannot but notice the duality of this concept, which denotes a certain problematics and a contradictory sense. Nothing is opposite to such concepts as "something", "matter", and "being". According to Leopardi, "nothingness (in addition to the already established meanings of impenetrability and potentiality) can also be understood as pure absence of matter" (Price & Johnson, 2012, p. 152). In the history of philosophy, nothing is rarely equated with the concept of non-existence, sometimes these concepts are delimited, while the non-existence was interpreted as a more abstract concept than nothing was, because it meant the denial of the existence at all (Price & Johnson, 2012, p. 152). If one looks at the philosophical encyclopedias and dictionaries, it becomes evident that the ancient philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato dwelled on the idea of nothing, having called it a "primordial matter" (Price & Johnson, 2012, p. 151). Thus, the category of "nothing" appeared in the ancient philosophy along with the development of the doctrine of being. In Greek philosophy, nothing appears as a separate category in the doctrine of being and void and is considered as a "necessary condition for the existence of a plurality of motion and change" (Price & Johnson, 2012, p. 151). Therefore, nothing is a pure possibility, passivity, and dependence, and it brings these qualities to each specific item, e.g. a "possibility of non-being" (Heidegger, Fried & Polt, 2000, p. 28).However, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Bergson rejected the notion of nothingness because of its meaninglessness: "nothing is without reason" (Blond, 2010, p. 55). However, a desire to restore this notion was characteristic for a number of movements of the 20th century. The most common philosophical argument begins with the concept of being. This question is constantly present in any philosophizing. It originated with the birth of philosophy and will always accompany it until there is a thinking humanity. It is the eternal question, and the depth of its content is inexhaustible. However, it remains unclear why humanity prefers being to non-being and uncertainty. The history of philosophy teaches that being and nothingness cannot exist without each other (Price & Johnson, 2012, p. 151). Beingness is not static, and all concrete forms of existence of matter arise from the non-existence and become the existence. Nevertheless, most philosophers do tend to deny non-existence and to treat it as a dependent being or as a form of another being.
If one dwells on the subject of nothing in terms of the world's religions, it becomes clear that this subject is present in most of the world's religions. There is one crucial questions that arises with the analysis of this subject in the framework of the religions: "Could God create the world out of nothing?" (Blond, 2010, p. 37) At the same time, it is almost always the basis of being or has a direct relationship to the Creator (Cifone, 2014, p. 264). Nothing, in the sense in which modern nihilists understand it, is peculiar to the Christian tradition. Non-existence of the different Eastern traditions is a quite different, rather positive concept. The most relevant notion that one can find in them about the idea of nihilism is their idea of the primitive chaos (Cifone, 2014, p. 271). God revealed the fullness of truth, which explains the beginning and end of all things only to His chosen people; He spoke only vaguely and indirectly with other nations. Nothing is primarily a problem of creation of the world by God out of nothing. God himself in the mystical tradition is nothing. The Bible serves as one more example: it describes that the angels, the visible universe, and a man were created out of nothing (Cifone, 2014, p. 272). In Buddhism, the concept of Nothing is missing, however, it is interwoven with the highest goal. The ultimate goal of Buddhism is passing into nirvana, just as the main goal of Christians is a return to the kingdom of heaven. Speaking in physical terms, nirvana is a border area. Thus, nirvana is the Great Nothing. It is not possible to inquire to the being, to go beyond it; there is no way to turn a person into being without Nothing.
Moreover, Jean-Paul Sartre says that the essence of any consciousness is precisely nothing, consciousness is not the substantial, it is a pure phenomenon in the sense that it exists only to the extent to which it appears to be (Cifone, 2014, p. 238). However, since it is a phenomenon and represents the void, it is nothing. From this, I can conclude that nothing, as a concept or a notion, is very important for philosophy and religion. Despite the fact that there were attempts to positively approach to understanding of nothing at the beginning of the 19th century, this term is still associated with negativity and the fear of loss of a person's absolute. The range of issues that is concerned by nothing opens the different perspectives of human studies. Nothing in mathematics was an important milestone in the history of arithmetic: it is the number zero, which identifies nothing among digits (Price & Johnson, 2012, p. 198). Therefore, if one imagines that matter is created out of nothing that restricts all possible matter in the universe, where did the Creator of the whole world matter come from? The answer to this question can be found both in the Bible and philosophy. Analyzing both, it is clear that the Creator, to some degree, is nothing, as it omnipresent and omnipotent.
In conclusion, the concept of "nothing" is one of the most important and controversial concepts in the history of humankind. Its etymology is quite interesting to study and can open many different mysteries associated with the most important knowledge for humankind. This concept has a very contradictory nature, as it attempts to create an original interpretation of the language trap and leads Inyo deadlock. The concept of "nothing" in the framework of philosophy has created a lot of complex issues, which were studied by philosophers such as Parmenides, Aristotle, Plato, Heidegger, Sartre, and many others. At the same time, there are various contradictions and individual interpretation of this concept in the teachings of each of these philosophers. Nothing is of key importance for the philosophy of existentialism, since it defines the problems of human existence, which is associated with a sense of fear of non-existence. In addition, it should be noted that this concept play a key role for the world's religions. The concept of "nothing" performs a primal function in every religion or a worldview. It is the basis for the creation not only of matter and a man, but of the entire universe too. There are opinions that the Creator can act like nothing. As for Buddhism, nothing is a basis to get rid of suffering and a special state of mind. To summarize this analysis, I can say that the concept of "nothing" is of particular importance for humanity.
References
Blond, L. P. (2010). Continuum Studies in Continental Philosophy: Heidegger and Nietzsche: Overcoming Metaphysics. London, GB: Continuum. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com
Cifone, M. (2014). Nothingness And Science (A Propaedeutic). Cosmos & History, 10(1), 251-274.
Heidegger, M., Fried, G., & Polt, R. F. H. (2000). Introduction to Metaphysics. Trans. Manheim. New Haven: Yale University Press. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com
Price, D., & Johnson, R. (2012). Movement of Nothingness: Trust in the Emptiness of Time. Aurora, CO, USA: Davies Group Publishers. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com
