Hey @alexander.alexis,
finally found the time to take a look at your posts, and I am really glad I did. I like the article a lot, and might add another view: You talk about the table, and what it consists of. An answer would be -"nothing".
As you showed, it is hard to distinguish what belongs to the table, which molecules, it is hard to determine why the wheels belong to the car and not the street - except if you again simplify it to a concept.
A table is inherently nonexistant, as it is gone as soon as you take the legs away. There is no table present anymore, just 4 legs and a piece of wood. Your concept made it a table, especially if you have use for the table. As long as this concept is valid, you form a "relationship" with said table - you like or hate it, use it or perceive it as useless. If you lose the concept, because you want to build something else out of the table, this table is gone and suddenly only its parts exist and you form a relationship with them. So before grouping it into use-units, you actually need to create whatever you want to categorize.
In conclusion, the objects themself lack actual existence, as they are infinitively(at least concerning their use-value to us) dividable. Adding this variable of concept-forming or creating objects, the usefulness is relative(it was before as well, as you pointed out). As concepts are a product of our character and thoughts (I will now stop at this level) and subject to a constant change and fluidity, the absolute perception is also relative and changing, an inherent existence (=an unchangable, non-dependant nature) is not present.
Asking again:
"Why is there something?"
Is in itself false, as the possibility of true existance without cause can not be shown (neither scientifically nor philosophically). The same goes for "Who am I?" The thought of being a non-caused entity in itself is false, and therefore deceptious. Thus, answering both questions : there is, and is not, nothing, which lacks true existance. Simple! ;)
Or so I think.
Good thoughts!
A lot of it comes pre-created for us by nature. Let's say you meet with a new object. First thing you notice is it has shape and size. Why do you notice that? Because if you don't and you walk toward it, you might hurt your leg, say. Plants don't have vision because they don't move fast enough. Sense of touch is more appropriate in their case, because they're so slow that if there's any distance between you and them, it's like you're not there.
So first you see the object and its shape and size and colors (could be poisonous) etc. This comes by nature. The rest is more a result of nurture and more in line with what you've said.
Your response of course merits further thought and commenting. It's true everything is very fluid. You can never step into the same river twice and all that. What makes the river the same river? Its usefulness to us is the same. The atoms that make us up change every day, but Monday-Tom and Tuesday-Tom have equal usefulness to his wife and children etc. Reality's constant change has been troubling philosophers for millennia, hopefully this idea of "use" can explain somewhat how we give (lasting) identities to objects.
Again, not doing justice to what you said exactly, which is about "nothingness/emptiness" and all that, but it's rather late so I'll end it here!
Thanks for reading!
I agree for the most part! It would be interested to see if a human being would react to shapes and colors without learning about them, meaning without anyone telling the child what is useful or not.
Also, Monday-Tom and Tuesday-Tom are even more fluid, as maybe Tuesday-Tom decides to leave his family and thus ends his usefulness. But someone leaving was not useful for the family beforehand (if we at least keep the concept of family=useful), so in this case the deed defines the person, and in a way the future influences the past. A "good" (yay, more concepts) person cannot do "bad" deeds, likewise can a "bad" person not do "good" deeds. But we know this is not true, so logically the result would be that the person either changes frequently between good and bad, or the done deed defines the person. Having this uncertanty, "useful" and "not-useful" are way better concepts than "good" and "bad".
Thank you for sparking those thoughts!
You've one leg in science and the other in "philosophy" (thinking about things in the macro-scale). That's good! 👍
As a good friend of mine said: "
Living life is like running a race. Science (or the materialistic view) is one leg, philosophy is the other. Most people try to run their race with only one leg, thats why so many stumble and fall. You need both."
That sounds like a famous quote!