• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Most powerful philosophy

Lord_Zeref_Dragneel said:
M
Mind explaining?
Click to expand...
I'll just quote:

This is abstract negation which already is conceptual enough.
That which is abstract negation is simply this: that which is removed from relation or context, that which is separated and stands alone with only the affirmation that it is not. Pure abstract negation is the removal of all determinacy, all relation, all context. Abstract negation as such is the pure Being/Naught which remains to us when we carry out such a cognitive act and behold our result. This one-sidedness of negativity standing alone as negation without relation is precisely the meaning of its abstractness, its partedness as immediacy without explicit mediation.
Click to expand...
However, we dwell into something that's very absolute then we get this……..
If determinate negation is an explicit exclusion, then absolute negation is affirmation as the explicit reality of negation through negation, or it is the explicit unity of immanent opposition. Absolute negation is not being as opposed to not being, but being through not being. It is the is the standpoint where negation itself stands within its own process and structure. Negation is the basic mediatedness of immediacy, the concept structure and dynamic which grasps its distinction or the way Being falls apart. When negation and reality, which are shown by their own dialectic to be one identical process, are sublated they are in the structure of negation itself: the negations are negated, they are distinguished in the whole.
Click to expand...
To put it in the pure language of negation: negation is truly the negation of negation, i.e. negation itself is subsumed under its own structure, it itself is negated. {Negation}~{negation} is itself in the structure of negation, this is why negation is doubled upon itself and one must say that negation is negated—absolute negativity. In quality, negation is through excluding its opposite, reality, just as reality is through negating it. In excluding negation, reality is itself negative, and in excluding reality negation is itself real. In that we come to recognize that negation is not a flat opposition of incompatibles where we have one or the other at one moment, but in fact is an immanent self-opposition where the opposite is already within our beginning and part of it, we come to see what absolute negation truly is. Negation is not secondary but a reflexion of the immediate negation that hides it, this immediacy being reality.

The opposite is the opposite of the opposite. A magnet, for example, is the united contradiction of its poles originating in one singular being and real movement which only appears as two incompatible opposites, the positive and negative poles. A whole magnet is the negation of negation, the absolute negation, the negative unity, the difference of the self-same. Absolute negation is the infinite movement which is its own self-repulsion and which in its repulsion finds its unity. Negation is only because it is itself negated by an opposite, so it is only in this constitutive self-relation of the negative. The positive charge is only in that it negates the negative charge and vice versa, and yet these two poles do not destroy each other, but find themselves in one negative unity as the magnet.
Click to expand...
To put it short. Absolute Negation does not absolutely have any form of meaning without making a meaning make a meaning makes sense. You would negate the negation of the negation in trying to negate the definition. Essentially, it's so paradoxical any form of title is a negation inside which also negates itself. No words, meaning, thoughts, or conception could negate the negate or that it would negate the negation of the negation.

See how makes no sense even if you could describe the impossible and unknowable. The concept never can never truly be absolute because it can't be absolute heck the closet thing to this is just God as nothing that's more nothing than nothingness or nothing of non-existence of non non-existence. In other words, it's purely not a thing if “thing” would even negate itself from definition of nothing of everything entirely.
 
VeryGoofyToddler2 said:
I'll just quote:

This is abstract negation which already is conceptual enough.

However, we dwell into something that's very absolute then we get this……..


To put it short. Absolute Negation does not absolutely have any form of meaning without making a meaning make a meaning makes sense. You would negate the negation of the negation in trying to negate the definition. Essentially, it's so paradoxical any form of title is a negation inside which also negates itself. No words, meaning, thoughts, or conception could negate the negate or that it would negate the negation on the negation.

See how makes no sense even if you could describe the impossible and unknowable.
Click to expand...

So an infinite chain of negation then?
 
Lord_Zeref_Dragneel said:
So an infinite chain of negation then?
Click to expand...
Its just not a thing at all. Even saying “thing” to describe nothing of negation itself is a negation that's a negation. There's no amount of negation that describes it in absolute form. Impossible can't possibly describe it, incomprehensibility is not meant to comprehend the nature of it. It is entirely and purely……… .
 
However, you can't get more close to absolute negation. Other forms of purest concepts are quite close:

Absolutely simple groups
Absolute nothing

The former has a deep connection to the Orthodox full-fledged view of absolute simplicity which only one branch of Orthodox Christianity takes which is deeper than most regular Orthodox Christianity on Dovine Simplicity where God does have metaphysical parts or Roman Catholic where God is one with the same metaphysical part. While that version is God has no parts and is itself the parts without invoking any or complete distinction. Which not even the Catholic goes that deep for.

The latter is well:

The topos of absolute nothingness is the ultimate “within which” all reality takes place. It can be understood as an alternative to a transcendent determiner of the world as conceptualized, for example, in medieval philosophy’s notion of God, Fichte’s transcendental ego, or Husserl’s transcendental subjectivity. Nishida did use the language of transcendence to explain absolute nothingness, saying it transcended the opposition between being and non-being, for example; but such language did not indicate any thing, power, or consciousness beyond the world. Absolute nothingness is infinitely determinable and its determinates form the actual world, but this “self-determination” occurs “without anything that does the determining,” like an agency without an agent. Equally paradoxical are the positive descriptions Nishida gives it, in spite of the implicit claim that it defies description. Rather than a mere absence of being, meaning, or function, absolute nothingness is active and creative in forming the actual world; and it manifests or awakens to itself through self-awareness. It is the foundation of the world and of the self which is a focal point of the world; but it is an uncommon kind of foundation in that it functions through self-negation. It cannot be called “absolute” unless it negates any particular determination of it and simultaneously enfolds them all. It is the universal of universals. Nishida was not able to combine these various descriptions into one coherent notion, but they partially converge in the sense of an undifferentiated whole that includes all its differentiations.
Click to expand...
Its meant to be very apophatic and close to absolute negation. This version I don't even think Nirguna Brahman, the Skyflower, or even complete Śūnyatā can scale to it. They just be a lesser version of the absolute of the absolute.
 
VeryGoofyToddler2 said:
Its just not a thing at all. Even saying “thing” to describe nothing of negation itself is a negation that's a negation. There's no amount of negation that describes it in absolute form. Impossible can't possibly describe it, incomprehensibility is not meant to comprehend the nature of it. It is entirely and purely……… .
Click to expand...
If I renember correctly ultima talked about this, and how the nothing we use in VSBW isn't the real nothing, as real nothing would be...Well, nothing.
 
Livinmeme said:
If I renember correctly ultima talked about this, and how the nothing we use in VSBW isn't the real nothing, as real nothing would be...Well, nothing.
Click to expand...
The nothingness we use in VSBW goes as far as being logical and sensible. However, we don't use the absolute version of it because well…..it doesn't exist because nothing would scale to it.
 
Last edited:
Lord_Zeref_Dragneel said:
Is absolute negation and absolute nothing the same thing?
Click to expand...
They're anogolous but not entirely the same. The former purely is “not” while the latter is nothingness if it were just nothing purely. They're both a form of negation and connected to apophatic theology that's how they're the same. It's just the former would even negate pure nothingness.
 
VeryGoofyToddler2 said:
conception could negate the negate or that it would negate the negation of the negation.

See how makes no sense even if you could describe the impossible and unknowable. The concept never can never truly be absolute because it can't be absolute heck the closet thing to this is just God as nothing that's more nothing than nothingness or nothing of non-existence of non non-existence. In other words, it's purely not a thing if “thing” would even negate itself from definition of nothing of everything entirely.
Click to expand...
So Absolute nothingness? or would that also be a negation because it can't be absolute nothingness if well "nothing" itself "exist". though then if we keep going "definition" has a whole can't exist or its not absolute nothingness. So forth so on
 
If High 1-A+ and 0 weren't as exclusive as they are by definition then WoD woudl've gotten it.

DeMatteis' Marvel Comics' High Tiers would've gotten it too because of how utterly cracked they made Eternity (I'm still going to try and argue it though because I still believe it's arguable)
 
LifeRiderthe1 said:
So Absolute nothingness? or would that also be a negation because it can't be absolute nothingness if well "nothing" itself "exist". though then if we keep going "definition" has a whole can't exist or its not absolute nothingness. So forth so on
Click to expand...
God being absolutely nothing would also be possible to negate. They're very similar concepts as I've explained to another person, but absolute negation can't even be nothing, it's just simply something that's not a thing.

Anyhow, this topic is very troublesome and taxing on the mind.
 
VeryGoofyToddler2 said:
God being absolutely nothing would also be possible to negate. They're very similar concepts as I've explained to another person, but absolute negation can't even be nothing, it's just simply something that's not a thing.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't by the very nature of it being something [a concept created by humanity], it would still fall under being a thing in that sense ?
 
Livinmeme said:
I will bet my liver, that world of darkness has already gone a 200 page long rambling about all types of philosophies
Click to expand...
World of Darkness got a little bit of everything, one way or another.

The only limit to negation is how arbitrarily you extend upon it in the material. Can't be NLF if you describe all the non-limits.
 
The_2nd_Existential_Seed said:
Wouldn't by the very nature of it being something [a concept created by humanity], it would still fall under being a thing in that sense ?
Click to expand...
Well, the concept itself isn't meant to be for human comprehension. Yeah, sure we created all forms of concept but their definition is exclusively meant to exercise something beyond our perception.
 
Look at these foolish westerners, arguing over Western philosophy when the East, that's where it's really at.

You know of A is not B, but have you seen THIS?!

  1. Is A B?
  2. Is A not B?
  3. Is A B everywhere?
  4. Is A B always?
  5. Is A B in everything?
  6. Is A not B everywhere?
  7. Is A not B always?
  8. Is A not B in everything?
Click to expand...
 
VeryGoofyToddler2 said:
No, it's not below at all. If you want to get semantical, sure. Its meant to be the same thing more or less. Absolute Negation just negates anything by definition including itself(nothing).
Click to expand...
So correct me if I'm wrong. Absolute Negation >= Absolute Nothing = Apophatic Theology (highest interpretation) > Alethic Relativism > Apophatic Theology (watered down version. Basically the wiki's standard for Tier 0) > EMR (Highest interpretation) > EMR (watered down version or the wiki's interpretation for High 1-A+)
 
Lord_Zeref_Dragneel said:
So correct me if I'm wrong. Absolute Negation >= Absolute Nothing = Apophatic Theology (highest interpretation) > Alethic Relativism > Apophatic Theology (watered down version. Basically the wiki's standard for Tier 0) > EMR (Highest interpretation) > EMR (watered down version or the wiki's interpretation for High 1-A+)
Click to expand...
Sure….lol
 
Lord_Zeref_Dragneel said:
So correct me if I'm wrong. Absolute Negation >= Absolute Nothing = Apophatic Theology (highest interpretation) > Alethic Relativism > Apophatic Theology (watered down version. Basically the wiki's standard for Tier 0) > EMR (Highest interpretation) > EMR (watered down version or the wiki's interpretation for High 1-A+)
Click to expand...
It stands to reason EMR at its highest would be greater than Alethic Relativism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NucleerChaos1922
Questions About the Tier System
Replies
3
Views
1K
The_2nd_Existential_Seed
The_2nd_Existential_Seed
NucleerChaos1922
I have a few questions about the tier system.
Replies
1
Views
780
JimedBro2020
JimedBro2020
NucleerChaos1922
About Hıgh 1-A+ | Can someone help me?
Replies
2
Views
1K
NucleerChaos1922
NucleerChaos1922
Boy.Line
Qualification issues.
Replies
7
Views
942
TheOrangeGuy09
TheOrangeGuy09
Where would my cosmology scale at?
Replies
8
Views
2K
GER
Back
Top