The History of Philosophy is nothing but an attempt to escape from Being.

It started
from Parmenides idea that the source of everything is Being. But because he cannot form
anything in Being or in short because he cannot make it into Nothing he resorts to poetical
approach. Followed by many generations of philosophers, though their approach is very
much diverse but they conformed into one, and it is the attempt to escape from Being. An
attempt to Nothing. But during the medieval period, God has now superseded Being. That
God is more superior to Being. Therefore, Being though clothed with Christian philosophy,
still form part of that great attempt in transcending it. The modern period in the personality
of Rene Descartes claimed that it is not Being but thinking to be the foundation of
everything. His famous dictum “Cogito ergo, Sum” somehow changed the course of the
attempt. That it is thinking first not Being. It was in Rene Descartes philosophy that
subsequent thinkers had detoured into the attempt in transcending Being or making it into
Nothing. Until the era of the existentialist thinkers, this Being has now been changed as
Existence. Heidegger’s philosophy can testify to this because for him man is forlorn and
bored because of this existence.
But why is it that there is Being instead of Nothing? Can we escape from Being? Can
the intellect can think of Nothing? Heidegger is quite right when he said that boredom would
surely engulf the consciousness of a man when he tries to transcend Being. As man through
induction ascends into the consciousness of Being, that Being of all beings, his means of
escape is whether make this Being as Nothing though he knew that such Being cannot be
Nothing. That is why Heidegger asks why is it that there is something instead of nothing or
why is it that there is Being instead of Nothing. Man, in his ‘being man’ really try to
transcend Being because he is bored. Through the beginning of time, from the time of the
Pre-Socratic period this Being is implicitly been tried to be transcended. Parmides an ancient
thinker championed this idea, that there is only Being the source of all things. But Plato
failing to define what is really is Being, dressed it with mythical ideas such as that Being is a
world of unchangeable form. It was only Hegel’s attempt on his dialectical method that this
Being has been described as Nothing. That because it is the most abstract, empty of any
form, it is now Nothing. But though it is the most abstract, it cannot be considered as
Nothing because only in thought that this Being is now considered as Nothing. But though
Being is Nothing they are also not the same because Being is Being and Nothing is Nothing.
Only in the abstract mind that this Being which for Hegel the Thesis, has its own Anti-
Thesis which is Nothing. That because thesis and anti-thesis cannot rest with each other then
it necessarily sublimates the Synthesis, which is “Becoming.” Schopenhauer trap in this
Being, considered it as the ‘irrational will’ and his method in escaping from Being, is to
divert man into art or music. Nietzsche abhorred Being because for him it is the flight into
Nothing. For Nietzsche it is not Being, but ‘will to power’, a world where there is only
chaos. Therefore, this is the main argument of the existentialist, their attempt in escaping
Being. For the existentialist, man in an attempt to escape from Being, has now been forlorn,
is in dread and in terrible boredom. According to the existentialist, their understanding of
Being concerning man is not Being but Existence. There Being is Existence. They have only
change the word Being into Existence but their connotation is still the same. Why is it that
there is Existence instead of Nothing is their motto. In Sartre’s idea instead of Being
precedes essence he change it into “Existence precedes essence.”
Even how modern is man’s attempt to escape; still their main purpose is to be in
Nothing. Logical positivist destroys Being because for them there is no such thing as Being.
It cannot be verified even through the analysis or empirical method, therefore why bothered
about it. For Wittgenstein “What cannot be said, we pass over in silence”, so Being the most
abstract is nonsense and should be discarded. But what about their ideas, their theory what
can we call them if there is no Being? They would say it is positivism and what is
positivism? Do not tell me they would say it is Nothing. So there attempt to escape from
Being is a failure.

But is there a Nothing? How can Nothing be defined? Besides, it would be absurd to
define what has nothing in it. Is it but absurd to say “Nothing is…” for how can a pure
Nothing has something? On the other hand, if it has something then it is not nothing but
Being. To say “Being is…” is valid and true because there is really something that can be
predicated in it. However, pure Being according to post-modern thinkers, cannot be
predicated also because the thing that is to be predicated in Being is also being, which mean
to say that pure Being cannot be predicated and the only valid predication in it is “Being is
Being”. But this does not mean that Being and Nothing are identical. Being and Nothing are
not two identical things because Nothing is Nothing. There is nothing in Nothing and Hegel
is wrong when he claimed that pure Being is pure Nothing.
If there is Nothing then it is not Nothing because there ‘is’. If there is ‘is’ Nothing
then, it is still Being. There is ‘is’. But can a Being that is a cause of itself ‘causa sui’ a valid
proposition? If Being is the cause of its Being, then this Being is the cause of its Being and
not Nothing. But how come that this Being comes from Being? There is a principle of
Espinoza that says, when the intellect affirms it negates also. For example, when the intellect
would judge green, it affirmed, determined and thus negated from all colors. Conversely, for
Hegel it is negation, which is the source of all affirmation. That when the mind negate, for
example it is not green, it affirms all the color though the intellect do not know what that
color would be. Thus, in the relation between Being and Nothing, according to Hegel when
you negate, the intellect affirmed Being. But what is this Nothing? If Nothing is the starting
point, then it is not Nothing but still Being. Being is not Nothing and so why would Hegel
says that when the mind negate it affirmed Being the fact that the Nothing, which is the total
negation, is not Nothing but still Being? Being and Nothing are not two entities for there is
Nothing in Nothing. Only Being and Being can be considered to be two things and can be
put in a formula for example, Being = Being and not Being = Nothing. But Hegel’s
perspicuous mind cannot rest on this formula for according to him, Nothing is Being since
Being has no distinction whatsoever, the most abstract, the emptiest form, then it is the same
to judge that it is Nothing. For according to him as he argued further, this Being is not a
particular being like for example this chair, that he admitted that to judge that it is a chair
and not a chair at the same time would be to violate the principle of non-contradiction. His
Being is the Being of all beings the most abstract, the Being which is the emptiest form of
which there is nothing that can be predicated. The Being that is not a substance is the Being
that Hegel is trying to point out. The Being that can only be intuitively grasped by the mind
through analogy as well is for Hegel now is Nothing. He attacked further, the weakness of
understanding. That it is the understanding that is the cause of the mind’s incapacity to
grasped the truth that Being is Nothing. However, Hegel’s radical idea throws some light for
it is true that Being is Nothing. For if Being is the most abstract, the emptiest idea of which
there is nothing that can predicated in it, then it is Nothing. Nonetheless, it is not because
Being is the most abstract, that the mind would judge that it is Nothing already. What about
its being abstract, is it Nothing? It’s being abstract, empty is not Nothing, therefore Hegel
cannot just violate the principle of non-contradiction.
Heidegger simply change Being into existence but what he wanted to show is that
Being because of its abstractness somehow puts man into boredom. Surely, anyone who was
able to grasped Being can experience emptiness because Being has no distinction. Being
really puts man into forlornness because Being though it is the most abstract cannot be
considered as Nothing. Is Being Nothing? But no! Being is Being and Nothing is Nothing
and so man is in dread, in forlornness, in boredom. He is in dread because Being cannot be
even predicated of something and yet when man tries to predicate since predication is being
but not the Being per se. Or because man has no means in trying to escape from Being, he
“Leap”(Kierkegaard) but this leap does not means that it is already an escape for the act of
leaping is still being. So, is the quest for Nothing a valid act? Is there a value in the act for
Nothing? But how can man escape from Being, in fact without Being there is no man as
well? This is the reason why existentialist would pull man back to his empirical attitude in
his relation to the world. A some sort of resignation with the challenge in the quest of
Nothing. That according to Kierkegaard what can man gain in contemplating Being? What
can he found in Being, in fact, it is the most abstract, the emptiest, and the Nothing yet there
is something? And, he resorts to an action of “which he [Kierkegaard] can live and die. But
how can he even act in the absence of Being? That before Kierkegaard act, he must
presuppose Being, and therefore he is still entrapped by Being. Before he [Kierkegaard] can
leap he must presuppose Being and so he ends still in Being. There is nothing in Being, even
joy and sadness are lost in the abstractness of Being. Precisely, this is what now Nietzsche
had trying to invite his reader that this is the true challenge of life. Those who neither would
surrender nor recourse to resignation in the quest for Nothing is considered Superman. He
always challenges man, the contemporary man to aim the farthest. Surely, this “farthest” is a
feeling in the quest for Nothing. But can it be possible to aim the Nothing? For even how far
man would set his goal, it cannot still escape from Being. It must presuppose Being, whether
he [Nietzsche] calls it the ‘Will to Power’; ‘The eternal recurrence’ still has to presuppose
Being. That is why Nietzsche said in his short story the “Madman” that this event is still
very far from the ears of men (meaning everything that had been discovered, that has been
known by philosophy or science is only a piece or only a part of the totality of Being). That
man in his claim for truth has no right to justify that it is truth because it is only meager
compared to the totality of Being. Therefore, there is no end in learning, in philosophizing
for there is Being. The history of philosophy would end either in Being or Nothing. The
Being that for Hegel has no more Anti-thesis. So, philosophy has been save in the sense that
it has not yet on the middle of its attempt in making Being explicit. There is no time to rest,
we have to philosophize, man has to exhaust Being or man has to continue the quest for
Nothing. That for Kierkegaard either/or but for Hegel both/and. What does this mean? It
means that in the end, man would either resigned in Being or Nothing. However, for Hegel
man and all beings are now logically become a system, in which everything is rational. That
for Hegel, there is nothing that cannot be known because Being has been much defined
through the dialectical method. So there are no more opposite but there is only Being.
However, though Knowing and Being are identical, that there is no more gap, these two are
also distinct because knowing is knowing and being is being.

Why is it that there is something instead of nothing? Why is it that I was born?
Because it would be better not to be born or as if there is nothing at all compared to be born
in this world. Why? Did God really choose me to be born in this world? Why? What is his
purpose? Why did God make me born, in fact if I have given a chance to decide, I will
choose not to be born. If God were the reason why I was born, I would say that He is so
unfair because, He did not give me a chance to decide. But some might contend, are you not
happy of being born? You have to be happy because being born is a blessing. But why? I do
not mean that I am not happy being born, on the contrary, I am so much happy because, I
was born. But why? Why is it that there is a world? Why is it that there is a universe? Why
is it that there is life? Why is it that there is everything instead of nothing? Why? Why is it
that God created everything? Why is it that there is a God? Why? Why is it that there is a
why? What is why? Why is it that I am asking questions? I ask questions because I want to
know. I want to know why there is something instead of nothing. But why ask? But why not
ask! So, the only answer to my question is a question. The answer to my question is not an
answer but a question. The answer why there is something instead of nothing is an answer
already. But not and open ended question but still a question. The ‘why’ is the answer of any
question. The world does not care or ask why it has been created. For example, a mosquito
does not ask why they became a mosquito. The stone do not ask why it became a stone. But
how do I know that they do not ask? Am I a mosquito or a stone or everything? However, as
far as I have experience, it has never been prove that a stone has feeling or a capacity to ask
questions. Thus, in that case it is better to be a stone because a stone has no feeling or does
not bother about life. Unlike me, I am always asking questions and if I do not ask question,
still there is something that is lacking. I am in jealousy with the sun, the mosquito, the ants,
the trees, everything that is not me because there just being there and never care whether
there would be no food to eat, whether there is no money, no women to have sex etc. The
world except me is there but me I am always in asking, always in searching, always in
longing, always in aware. Why? Why is it that I am like this instead of a mosquito, an ant, or
the world? Why is it that I am not the sun? Why is it that I am not a mosquito or anything
except what I am? Why? On the other hand if there is no God, then why? Why is it that I
was born? Why is it that there is a world, a universe without a God? If there is no God then
why? Why? But I think there is no answer to this question because every time there is a
possible answer it can still be questioned. For example, there would someone answer, that it
is God or the absolute reason itself is the reason of everything. But why God or reason?
They would say you couldn’t question further reason because it is reason. But why reason?
Why is it that reason is the reason of everything? Because the reason is the reason of itself or
God is the cause of itself. But how come and why is it that God is the cause of Himself?
Why is it that there is a reason or something instead of nothing? You cannot ask that because
you are something. Because if you are nothing, then maybe you can answer your question.
For the question cannot really be answered because you are something. So the question
remains a question. It can never be answered but there are already plenty of answers. But
these answers are only part of the many answer that has to be sought first. But can nothing
be experience? Is there a nothing? Alternatively, we would reverse the question, why is it
that there is nothing instead of something? However, to ask what if there is nothing is
refutable because it seems there is something in nothing. To ask what is nothing is a
contradiction because there is no ‘is’ in nothing? If there is ‘is’ in nothing then it is not
nothing but something? But why is it that the question at the outset asked, why is it that
there is something instead of nothing, if nothing is nothing? If there were no nothing in
nothing, then the proper question would be, why is it that there is something, only?
In sum, there is only one thing that man is trying to conquer and it is the quest for
nothing. But is this not an absurd act? Is it not a futile to say and search nothing? What can I
find in nothing? There is nothing that I can find in nothing for nothing is only my starting
point to search for something. That is why I have to search nothing first in order to find
something. It is because Being has now been considered as the first principle which in turn
as an imperialistic idea for the western. The influence of Being is so great that I have no
place to escape. The best move is to find nothing and then Being so that in nothing there is
freedom of everything whether in Philosophy or any branches of knowledge. Being is
already bias. However, it is only on the level of understanding that this attempt for the quest
of nothing is questionable. For philosophy would solely depend on the first principle that
there is no knowledge if it will not presuppose Being. Therefore, there is no freedom in
philosophy because Being is already a Being. Unlike in Nothing there is absolute freedom
because there are no biases in Nothing. Therefore, the quest for Nothing is valid and the
question now is: Why is it that there is nothing instead of something? Some would say,
language is the house of Being, but how can it build a house if it would not presuppose
Being first? The language or house is a being, so it is refutable to say that language is the
house of Being. It would preferable to say language is the house of nothing because it is
possible because there is nothing then it needs a house, which is language. It would even be
further to be clear to say, that Being is the house of Nothing, for Being is already a language.
So, what is Nothing? But this question is absurd because how can a definition be made in
nothing? How can nothing be defined if it is nothing? But why would I bother myself with
this question? What is it that I want to know? What is it that would really make me peaceful
concerning life? If I do not ask, still I am wondering. If I totally disregard this bullshit
philosophy, still there is something. So, do I have a choice? I think I have no choice because
if I choose not to philosophize, still there is something and if I choose to philosophize the
outcome is still the same. But I had better choose to philosophize because there is something
that I know although imperfect than not to ask questions or to philosophize. I have to “leap”
also without thinking where would I land. It would be either Being or Nothing. But I choose
Nothing for in nothing there is freedom. But how come there is freedom in nothing if it is
nothing? The only thing in nothing is nothing or it cannot be called a thing because a thing is
being.

Therefore, my only consolation is to be with this world and simply continue existing,
waiting for the time I will die. Is this life all about? I was born without any reason, without
any chance to be given a choice to decide whether I will be born or not, and after being born
is the beginning of death. Why? What for is to exist? What for is heaven or hell? Why is it
that there is something? What if there is just simply total nothingness? Am I important? For
sure, I am important for my wife and son because they have loved me. But what about me?
About myself, am I important to myself? Thinking, existing with this world without any
reason, without anyone to console to with this dreadful question (why is it that there is
something instead of nothing) somehow push me to say that life is not important. My life is
not important except to my family. But time will come that my family and me will be totally
be forgotten. Million years from now, can me, and my family be remembered? I do not think
so. Thus, existence in the first place, has no importance. If there is importance of my
existence then that reason is only superficial because it is solely based on personal desires.
For example my wife give importance of her life because of our son and me. On my part I
treated life as important because of my wife and my son also. Thus, the basic thing why man
put importance on life is because of personal wishes and desires. However, though it the
aforementioned reasons are some considered facile, I cannot also put blame on myself and to
other people. If that is there view of life then let them have it. As long as they do not give up
their existence, as long as they still enjoyed and satisfied with their day-to-day living then
there is no one or even God cannot just cut off their rights to live.