Nihilum Non

Baudrillard said: The question used to be: Why is there something instead of nothing? Today, the question is: Why is there nothing instead of something?

This is all confusion: nothing is not an absolute idea, but an indication that something is not where or what it was thought to be.

So the question `why something and not rather nothing´ is indeed a result of misplacement of the term ´something´. If being is explained so as to be understood, there is no more question as to why it would exist, instead of nothing. It becomes clear that, versus/on top of nothing, precisely what does exist is what would exist.

The reversed question why there is not rather something than nothing, is essentially the same question/ing, as it departs from an absence, a lack of context for experience. As the vacuum of a beings experience increases, as it is less able to relate to itself, as it loses consciousness, the question of the naturalness and self evidence of its own being becomes more problematic, and with that the given of being becomes rationally unsustainable.

Even in abstract ratio the subject has need of itself, as value primacy, to ground inferences.