Nothing: A Philosophical History

by Roy Sorensen

An entertaining history of the idea of nothing - including absences, omissions, and shadows - from the Ancient Greeks through the 20th century

How can nothing cause something? The absence of something might seem to indicate a null or a void, an emptiness as ineffectual as a shadow. In fact, 'nothing' is one of the most powerful ideas the human mind has ever conceived. This short and entertaining book by Roy Sorensen is a lively tour of the history and philosophy of nothing, explaining how various thinkers throughout history have conceived and grappled with the mysterious power of absence -- and how these ideas about shadows, gaps, and holes have in turned played a very positive role in the development of some of humankind's most important ideas. Filled with Sorensen's characteristically entertaining mix of anecdotes, puzzles, curiosities, and philosophical speculation, the book is ordered chronologically, starting with the Taoists, the Buddhists, and the ancient Greeks, moving forward to the middle ages and the early modern period, then up to the existentialists and present day philosophy. The result is a diverting tour through the history of human thought as seen from a novel and unusual perspective.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction

363 pages, Kindle Edition

Published January 1, 2022

Reviews

[Rik · Rating 3 out of 5]

A fun read but not that much in depth. The book aspires to be a ‘history’ of nothing, but leaves out many parts and authors of that history. The book is more a string of associations with some interrupting theories, but it hardly presents the discussed authors in a clear way. Some chapters are better at presenting authors than others. I am still bamboozled how one can write a chapter on Nagarjuna without consulting any of the primary sources.

[Anthony Crupi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Aside from the perplexing omission of Heidegger, who gets two drive-by mentions, the absence that most haunts this text is that of the copy editor, who seems to have vanished like Doughboy at the end of Boyz n the Hood. Perhaps it's all part of an extended gag, but words—more often than not, the two-letter prepositions—are forever not appearing where they're meant to be, and while the frequency of these lexical defections in some way underscores Sorensen's thesis, it's also more irritating than the business end of a turtleneck nuzzling up against a fresh spot of razor burn.

This sentence in particular functioned as a candle-lit invitation to make nice with the Void: "It is from a book of Henry II kept in Munich library." As the aphasic philosopher once said, "God is a disease we imagine we are cured because no one dies it nowadays."

[Jo · Rating 2 out of 5]

A book on such a profoundly deep subject, the explanation seems to render it superficial. It felt like an overdue school essay, with not enough depth.

[Bryan Jay · Rating 1 out of 5]

Like the name of the title a book about absolutely nothing. The book is extremely confusing and disconnected as the author jumps from topic to topic without any path. I would avoid it unless you really have nothing better

[Rafael Nieto · Rating 4 out of 5]

Because I’ll be the first review, if you like philosophy, fun facts, and another perspective, I say, this is a fun book.

[Julian Navarro Velazquez · Rating 5 out of 5]

As many things in life, this will satisfy you or not depending on what you were looking for previously. It's pouring rain at the moment in my city, what I needed now was to write reviews of the books I've read in these months to fill something in. How do you fill in void? There's a void? Should we expect an upcoming void? Shit, it's always been there. Depending on your approach to the void, the hole inside of you may feel empty or about to be enriched. Perhaps empty spaces out there are a manipulation of reality based on our despair, deception, our unmet feelings regarding what the world could be and it's not. So this book talks about this in a funnier way with jokes, good logics and a sense of humor. I got none of those today, just the need to fill in the gap with language (special suggestion to read the chapter on Bergson).

[Paul Babić · Rating 1 out of 5]

As others have said, I didn't enjoy the writing style. To me it came across as rambling, and so it was difficult to follow the author's point. There were even points where I forgot what the book was supposed to be about and had to remind myself. When I did philosophy in undergrad, one of the things my professors stressed to all of us in our first year was the importance of sign-posting (i.e., explaining what a particular paragraph or chapter is supposed to accomplish). I think Sorensen may be due for a refresher.

There were some interesting tidbits, but nothing very substantial. However, as others have said, there was a superficial treatment of the eastern thinkers, particularly Buddha. I felt that he spent most of that chapter talking about other philosophers and not really diving into primary texts. As this was one of the most promising and anticipated parts of the book for me, I was incredibly disappointed and that is where I put it down.

[Robert · Rating 5 out of 5]

according to the 3-star ratings this book has received, it is underrated. I rarely see Philosophy done with novelty today as its long tradition and professionalism and the disciplinary training path 'Philosophers' are put onto in modern days has made it exceedingly difficult to do anything truly new. You would appreciate the endless insights and intellectual sparks in this book if you know what I'm talking about. Even more rarely so, they all take place in an organic ecology of the author's scholarship and imagination. Granted, it is always 'fun' to witness things well done. Yet its language of clarity and elegance might have disguised the profound intensity entailed by the kind of intellectual work the author has committed - it is not a 'easy' read at all, if one reads to understand.

[Waldo · Rating 3 out of 5]

"All absences are absences for someone".

"The earliest "ears" heard silence. The earliest "eyes" eaw little shadows grow into big shadows, and big shadows brcome total darkness."

"It does not matter whether the cat is black or white as lonh as it cathes mice."

"Satan is a shadow of god. He is incapable of God's originality and so is forever copying the divine."

"The actual world is the best as a world. But is it best for us?"

[isa]

lacking in depth but informative for me having known next to nothing about philosophy. needs copyediting bad.

[Zach Bishop · Rating 5 out of 5]

Philosophy after all is a historicization - and there is no better subject than “nothing” which Sorensen frequently makes something out of.

[Peter Lambert · Rating 2 out of 5]

Roy gives us a good description of various historical philosophers from pre Socratics to the 1900s. However, fails to mention George Hegel, Heidegger or Sartre. I felt disappointed.