system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
If there is a nothingness that is beyond imagination, wouldn't all attempts to define it lead to a paradox?

Wouldn't it be like writing down a description of a blank piece paper using that same paper? The blankness would be effortlessly self-explanatory and any effort made to write a description, no matter what symbols you use, would work against you. The more symbols you write on that paper the more you have to look past them in order to see the blankness they move upon. Or just erase them all together. 

Or what about in terms of sound and trying to talk about silence? Wouldn't it be best to just be silent? Even if you do try to define silence, again it doesn't matter what language you use, whatever you say breaks the silence and moves you away from what you're trying to define. Wouldn't I be better off just ignoring everything you said and waiting for the sounds you made to move on? 

Well what about if I was trying to imagine nothingness? Wouldn't it also be best explained by not making no effort to imagine it? And wouldn't anything you imagine about it would just obscure the nothingness that the imagined image moves upon?
gpt
It sounds like you might want to look into Ludwig Wittgenstein. In particular he has some ideas concerning, "saying" vs. "showing" in that, some things can't be said, only shown. Also, in his line of thinking, your question might be considered nonsensical, in that it's our lack of understanding of the grammar of our language that allows us to even form questions like "what is the good" or "something beyond thought" (to paraphrase your question). Since for something to be "beyond imagination" suggests that it cannot be conceived of at all. Given that state of affairs there would be no way to describe it with language since that would require a conception of it on our part. Check out a summary of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, it might provide some insight into your question.