Is something something or is it really nothing?

In reading Heidegger's question of why there are essents rather than nothing and thinking about the question we were asked in class of why is there chalk instead of no chalk, I was strangely reminded of DesCartes'. When we were asked this question in class, the discussion that came up was more or less of whether or not we can say with absolute certainty that there is, in fact, chalk. In DesCartes' first meditation, he talks about how that which he accepts as the highest truth and certainty, he gathers from his senses. He then goes on to say how he is inherently driven to doubt those observations because his senses have led him wrong before. In the same way, as we strive to simplify, we look to assert with absolute certainty that there is chalk. "I can see the chalk on the table. I can touch it and feel it. Without a doubt, that piece of chalk exists."

However, I think DesCartes' would agree with Heidegger when he pursues the "essence of the essent." He asks what exactly makes the essent an essent rather than nothing. We say that the chalk does exist because we can see it and touch it and seemingly confirm the fact that it is there. I would assert then, that according to Descartes' and Heidegger, the only absolute truth in this situation is the fact that we perceive the chalk to be existent, but because of perception itself, that becomes subjective in nature. It is safe to say that each and every person looking at the chalk has a unique perception of it, and if that is true, then the chalk cannot actually have a concrete form, e.g. concrete existence. Unless I am just completely off the mark, I think this is a crucial idea present in Heidegger's writing. An essent is an essent rather than nothing because it is percieved as such, but at the same time, that fact does not guarantee any absolute existence.

Hope that makes sense. Sorry for totally rambling.

p.s. I commented on Jabberwocky