This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nothing article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 625 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 8 May 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() Archives ( Index) |
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
nihilogony or nilogony
definition:
The belief that nothingness itself had an active role in cosmogony as a potential state.
example:
Many physicists speak about a universe from nothing, but none has a specific theory of nihilogony. All existing theories are logically procedural, and their axiomatic foundations is rigorous logic and not the notion of nothing. 2A02:2149:8B03:1000:510F:834D:94E8:AF16 ( talk) 02:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
removing typos in 1st paragraph 3rd line Brookdogboy ( talk) 05:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
The section regarding Hegel and nothing contains many, however common, misconceptions on Hegelian philosophy. Most notably, it defines Hegelian Dialectics as Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis. This is incorrect (the Dialectic page's Hegelian section actually has a very well-written description of Hegel's logic). A more accurate system preserving the current structure would be to define Hegel's dialectic as Abstract/Negative/Concrete. This would better match Hegel's actual writing style and better incorporate the process as a subsection to the philosophical notion of "nothing". Alternatively, it may be better to rewrite this section from Hegel's view of Nothing as part of his Science of Logic. However, I do not know what the best form for that information would be. Davedbo ( talk) 23:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I saw there was a grammatical mistake in the page. VaideFNOnYT ( talk) 23:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
nothing. Removed edit orotection 2A02:810D:8080:2780:D1B2:1C41:7BF8:F51E ( talk) 19:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
, then describe the change you want made.
Paradoctor (
talk)
20:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]</span>
Paradoctor (
talk)
15:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Just don't, it achieves nothing and annoys a lot of people Speakerset ( talk) 13:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nothing article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 625 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 8 May 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() Archives ( Index) |
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
nihilogony or nilogony
definition:
The belief that nothingness itself had an active role in cosmogony as a potential state.
example:
Many physicists speak about a universe from nothing, but none has a specific theory of nihilogony. All existing theories are logically procedural, and their axiomatic foundations is rigorous logic and not the notion of nothing. 2A02:2149:8B03:1000:510F:834D:94E8:AF16 ( talk) 02:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
removing typos in 1st paragraph 3rd line Brookdogboy ( talk) 05:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
The section regarding Hegel and nothing contains many, however common, misconceptions on Hegelian philosophy. Most notably, it defines Hegelian Dialectics as Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis. This is incorrect (the Dialectic page's Hegelian section actually has a very well-written description of Hegel's logic). A more accurate system preserving the current structure would be to define Hegel's dialectic as Abstract/Negative/Concrete. This would better match Hegel's actual writing style and better incorporate the process as a subsection to the philosophical notion of "nothing". Alternatively, it may be better to rewrite this section from Hegel's view of Nothing as part of his Science of Logic. However, I do not know what the best form for that information would be. Davedbo ( talk) 23:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I saw there was a grammatical mistake in the page. VaideFNOnYT ( talk) 23:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
nothing. Removed edit orotection 2A02:810D:8080:2780:D1B2:1C41:7BF8:F51E ( talk) 19:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
, then describe the change you want made.
Paradoctor (
talk)
20:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]</span>
Paradoctor (
talk)
15:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Just don't, it achieves nothing and annoys a lot of people Speakerset ( talk) 13:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)