The Book of Non-Existence by Vadim Filatov (bill gates best books .TXT) 📕

another, is but a death anticipation, a rupture of own vital essence», - in the essay about tragic feeling of a life the Spanish philosopher Miguel Unamuno wrote.
However reason can become not a specific damnation, but a faithful ally. It is necessary to use it for the designated purpose: not for inventing various subjects making ineradicable existential sufferings rather comfortable. One must look at the world fairly and try to find a basic decision of the problem. Clearly, that it is deprived any sense to develop a material component of human life for this just component is doomed to destruction first of all. So attempts to be hooked for things, social communications or even for Time are completely senseless. «I vainly try to be hooked for instants, they escape me. There is no instants which would not be hostile to me, would not tear away me, would not notify me on the refusal to deal with me. All of them are not accessible to me also one behind another proclaim my loneliness and my defeat», - wrote Emil Cioran. – “The knowledge of myself always manages to be too expensive as, however, a knowledge in general, - argues it further. - When man will reach depths, he will not want to live. After all, in explained world nothing can have sense, except The Nothing. So a subject which is thoroughly examined loses value and it is better to it to disappear”. Thereupon, a person aspiring to think fairly - inevitably turns his look to The Nothing which becomes a starting point of his metaphysical awakening. Thus The Nothing is thought as unique absolute Truth which is not afraid of anything, even of negations of any true and of the idea of true itself. It turns out so that sense of life can be found, but this sense denies life. To understand and to accept primacy of absolute Nothing and excessive (superfluous) character of everything — that means to accept an existing course of things and to be built in it. If one tries to think with categories of Chinese philosophy it would equivalent to a contemplation of Universal Way (Tао), which is invisible to the majority of people perceiving shown material world as a unique reality and owing to this reason senselessly wandering in a dark. Some person is afraid when hopes: thus a patient is afraid of his doctor, and a believer is afraid of his God. But as a rule hope perishes first of all. Hopelessness is the property accessible only by very strong persons. The Anti-philosophy of Nothing demonstrates that if you wish to be afraid of nothing, it is necessary to remember that there is no anything to be afraid. For anything is not present. We are young, as our Will to death, and we are old, as our fears to die.

CHAPTER 3. The dark stars of the NON-EXISTENCE.

“This night all will be good.
This night all will be good.
Will be neither summer, nor autumn,
Neither spring, nor winter.
Nobody begins to think,
And nobody will go mad.
Nobody will be born
Also nobody will die.
Nobody will commit suicide,
And nobody will kill.
Nobody will be ugly,
And nobody will be beautiful.
Nobody will be dead,
But nobody will be alive.
This night all will be good.
This night everywhere there will be nothing.
This night everywhere there will be nobody.
This night all will be good”.
(Michael Naumenko)

1). Will to Death.

The death destroys all. If a person could die only by means of ordinary effort of will, the mankind would disappear very quickly. But the mechanism of self-development and self-damage provides every possible dodges, with which forces people to cling to a life while, at last, all of them with disgusting rotting does not fall prey of sepulchral hearts. Someone from philosophers has told that any life is a dying stretched in time. Every instant death approaches more and more close to victim, including a serial murderer of children and Lev Tolstoy, and leading both of them to absolute zero. So the Non-existence represents itself as such universal and unique reality that life appears as illusory visibility. Life is present only yesterday and today, while the Non-existence was, is and will be always.
During an epoch of Zenon and Epicure in the Ancient Greece there lived philosopher Hegecius nicknamed the Teacher of Death. It belonged to philosophical school, a founder of which, Aristippes, learnt that a sense of life consists in pleasures, and at the end of his life has committed suicide. Hegecius was convinced that a suffering reigns in the world. The best that a person can do is to try not to mourn about it, and to show insensibility to death. Hegecius so convincingly showed to people a pettiness of life that his many listeners have committed suicide and as a result, he has forbidden to propagate his teachings. However, Hegecius, also as Arthur Schopenhauer, who denied will to live and has lived to a ripe old age, did not call for immediate suicide at all – he preached only a contempt for a life and will for death, which meant his readiness to die in any minute. After all, as told Fales, between life and death there is no difference. However, when he was asked – why he, in that case, will not die, he has reasonably answered – just for this reason. In the history of philosophy one more will – nietzschean will to power - which is usually considered, as a statement of a life is known. However, according to Nietzsche, his will to power does not mean a banal tendency to domination. It is some kind of aspiration to fall outside the limits of sensation and to leave an incompleteness of our daily existence. Developing the concept of Nietzsche, it becomes possible to tell that will to power simultaneously represents itself as will to death or will to the Nothing, in which process is more important than result. This existential imperative has extremely clearly sounded in G. Bataille's statement: “Die, as a dog!” A philosophical substantiation of will to the Nothing as a further logic development of will to power can be found in Heidegger's philosophy: “To will the Nothing - it does not means to will absence of all valid. On the contrary, it just means to will valid, but only such kind of valid, which destroys everything, i.e. to will destruction. And in such Will, the power still provides possibility to be a master”. (M. Heidegger. “Nietzsche and the Void”). And what is the all-conquering Nothing? For the purpose to understand this, it is It is represented useful to consider some related concepts. In particular, in philosophical literature one can often meet with distinctions between three related blocks of concepts, such as: “the Non-Existence", "the Nothing” and “the Void”. It is necessary to note at that these three concepts are very close among themselves. However, it is necessary to make the reservation of that the listed concepts of the substantial relation are rather close among themselves. Therefore, their differentiation has a conditional character.

2). The Non-Existence is present, and existence is absent.

All of us will not be. Though thus already was.
Simple people trust only in those phenomena which they can see or hear. Some difficulty in definition of a non-existence consists of a spirit which has no any representation about the Nothing. It stops before this line behind which both contemplation and understanding disappear. Thus it is impossible to create neither an image, nor a concept about the Nothing - it is situated outside all definitions because the Nothing is a spirit. So dissolution of spirit in emptiness of the Non-existence is a spiritual consciousness of itself.
The Non-Existence is usually defined as an absence of life. Concept of "non-existence" distinguishes from "nothing", which is understood as last definiteness negation. So, as a rule, in philosophical tradition, concept of “non-existence” is considered only as a category opposite to life. Complexity of "non-existence", in which specified the Greek philosopher Parmenides, consists in the following: the non-existence is a kind of absence however definition of absence should be based on any signs. On the other hand, presence of signs means an existence of object of the description. As a result there is an interesting paradox, which can be defined as: “a presence of an absence of a non-existence”. This seeming paradox brings us to idea about self-sufficiency and a substantive character of a non-existence – an idea which ancient and medieval mystics had. However, they operated more often with concept "nothing". Expression «the Universe is nothing», was considered in a conceptual context concerning dissolution of human spirit in the Absolute, making a positive aspect of numerous mystical doctrines. Parmenides wrongly identifies life with a reality, refusing to adopt reality of non-existence. According to his statement, “existence is present, and non-existence is absent”. So the Non-Existence cannot be thought and described rationally. On the contrary, the Greek philosopher Democritus was assured of an existence (atoms), and a non-existence (empty space between them). Thus the "Non-Existence" of Democritus, like "the Void" in the Buddhism, is considered not as absolute absence, but as a certain special form of existence. Besides, the idea of the Non-Existence, in a form of assumption, is present in doctrine of a sophist Gorgius, who declared that: 1).The anything is not present; 2). If something is present, we will not learn about it; 3). If we would learn about it, we all the same can not tell this to anybody. And developing so-called “negative theology” medieval European theologians used a concept of the Nothing as instruction that a nature of God is inaccessible for understanding and is situated outside of all possible definitions.
As a whole, the aphorism of Parmenides about impossibility of a non-existence for a long time has limited the development of a positive component of this concept. In Russian philosophical tradition a substantive meaning of an absolute Non-existence has been openly proclaimed by philosopher Arseny Chanyshev in “The Treatise about a Non-Existence”. This work has been published rather recently and till now it is perceived by some representatives of official bureaucratic philosophy as an unsuccessful intellectual joke of the thinker, as something absolutely frivolous, a philosophical funny thing. And really: Chanyshev brushes aside all public and private principles, according to which within many years verbose and not representing the slightest value "philosophical" monographies were fabricated - so, he has acted in a role of an infringer of the convention. It would be enough to tell that this philosophical treatise of Chanyshev is written by clear language that is a crushing blow on imitating stylistics of bureaucratic philosophers according to which when a question is answered by a philosopher, you cease to understand a question. When speaking about characteristic for the majority of modern professional philosophers terminological chatter, Emil Cioran, in particular noticed that a most banal ideas, being translated on a philosophical slang, got deceptive importance and weightiness: “When a philosopher passes to normal language, it becomes clear at once, as a little he has what to tell. I always considered that philosophical slang is an improbable deceit”. If in an ancient times force of a word stopped the sun and destroyed cities, already in the Middle Ages the empty chatter became some kind of prestigious and well paid activity. In other words, simulators from philosophy do not confirm anything, but confirm it with very not clear words. So the American writer Henry Thoreau said in 19 century: “Presently there are professors of philosophy, but not philosophers”. Probably, Chanyshev became a rare exception of the law noted by Toro. According to his views, everything arises from the Non-existence in which