DOES NOTHING EXIST???

@guigus,

Are you completely dense? I have made the counter argument that your coded drivel is in fact not an argument at all. Are you just going to ignore that and keep copying the same over and over? It is you that are failing to address my argument.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Are you completely dense? I have made the counter argument that your coded drivel is in fact not an argument at all. Are you just going to ignore that and keep copying the same over and over? It is you that are failing to address my argument.

Sorry, but you have made no argument so far. You just said my sentences are ambiguous, hence resulting unclear, which amounts at most to ignoring what I said. So lets go by parts:

Code:Nothing is not each being.

For something to be ambiguous it must have more than one meaning, which in this case are?

Let me help you.

Is there a being identical to nothing? No, any being you take is not identical to nothing: not each being is nothing, or nothing is not each being.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

To make it even more clear:

Each being is not nothing.
Nothing is not each being.

The only ambiguity here comes from nothing itself, which means both a being and a non-being---hence the above also meaning that "not each being is not each being," or that "any being is any other being."

1 Reply

@guigus,

Nothing doesn't mean non-being. The idea of nothingness is a fantasy. A metaphysical reflection of thingness. When you open a drawer expecting to find a particular thing inside, but discover instead that the thing you were after is indeed not there, you would say that there is nothing in the drawer. There may be other things there, just not the thing you were after. Even if the drawer is empty, it isn't nothing. There is air inside it, but unless air was what you were after it makes sense to say that there is nothing in the drawer.

Under no circumstance would we use the term "nothing" as meaning a phenomenon in itself. It is always contrasted to a specific "something", and only within that relationship can the word "nothing" have any meaning.
Your attempts to derive truths from this concept are futile and foolish.

2 Replies

@mark noble,

First, please could you give your defining characteristics for existence? Also could you clarify the inherent ambiguity in your question?

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

I knew my statement was a little mental as well.
If I ask myself "does four exist", I say yes it does as it is used to accurately describe something numerically.
"Does bigger exist"? Thats a whole knew thread right there, what is beyond the universe?
If something is invalid, does this still mean that it exists.
I would like to know how anything has a real meaning and how would it differ from that which is meaningless?
This is where Guigus says that there is no difference everything is both at the same time!!

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

The idea of nothingness is not a fantasy...just incomprehensible. By trying to comprehend it, it's given form, which means it's no longer nothing. With this in mind, your statement of "nothing doesn't mean non-being" is correct. As far as your example, you stating "nothing" in a physical sense, which is ridiculous (as you pointed out). "Nothing" in a physical sense is just a term of convenience, such as saying "the dresser has nothing in it", which really means "the dresser has an absence of material things (such as clothing).

As far as what guigus is talking about, it's absolutely, in no way a phenomenon. I would say that it's actually more of a noumenon. It an internal, ineffable "experience" which cannot really be conveyed in this materialistic form. That explains why you consider this to be "futile and foolish" because, in a sense, it is...but everything is to some degree.

3 Replies

@TheoryJester,

Quote:

If I ask myself "does four exist", I say yes it does as it is used to accurately describe something numerically

Yes. But why can't you see the similarity to "nothing"? As you say, "four" is meaningless without a relation to something "four" says something about.

I am not denying that the word "nothing" exists. But to ask if there is anything behind the word, some thing that is "nothing", is just misguided. That's not what the word means at all.

If you would like to know how something has meaning, study the relationship between yourself as the perceiver and the object of your perception. That is where meaning lies.

0 Replies

@Chights47,

You have let yourself become confused by guigus' mad ramblings. It is what he aims to do in order to look like a sensible thinker. But to talk of the form of "nothing" is nonsensical and foolish.

Quote:

By trying to comprehend it, it's given form, which means it's no longer nothing.

This displays the foolishness of it rather well. It might seem like a deep and profound problem, a contradiction that holds some sublime truth, but it is not. It is just a category error where you are assigning attribute of words to what the word means. You might think "nothing" is a thing (no-thing), and therefore the grammatical rules that apply to words about things applies to the word "nothing" as well, and so you think it can have form or whatever, because things have form. But that is just nonsense. The key lies in language, in semantics, as far as philosophy is concerned, this is a dead end issue.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Nothing doesn't mean non-being.

Our discussion stops here (sorry, but I have no more time to waste).

0 Replies

@Chights47,

Chights47 wrote:

The idea of nothingness is not a fantasy...just incomprehensible. By trying to comprehend it, it's given form, which means it's no longer nothing. With this in mind, your statement of "nothing doesn't mean non-being" is correct. As far as your example, you stating "nothing" in a physical sense, which is ridiculous (as you pointed out). "Nothing" in a physical sense is just a term of convenience, such as saying "the dresser has nothing in it", which really means "the dresser has an absence of material things (such as clothing).

As far as what guigus is talking about, it's absolutely, in no way a phenomenon. I would say that it's actually more of a noumenon. It an internal, ineffable "experience" which cannot really be conveyed in this materialistic form. That explains why you consider this to be "futile and foolish" because, in a sense, it is...but everything is to some degree.

Nothing as a being is not a product of our imagination, but rather a product of nothing itself: of its ambiguity. Which is why nothing is indeed "incomprehensible": it is incomprehensible precisely because its being something is not "ridiculous," but rather rigorously true. Ridiculous is trying to make nothing exclusively a non-being: it will always become something on your back, and you are just making yourself too important by thinking this is a product of your imagination.

1 Reply

@Chights47,

Chights47 wrote:

As far as what guigus is talking about, it's absolutely, in no way a phenomenon. I would say that it's actually more of a noumenon. It an internal, ineffable "experience" which cannot really be conveyed in this materialistic form. That explains why you consider this to be "futile and foolish" because, in a sense, it is...but everything is to some degree.

Sorry, but you didn't get me: to me, nothing is everything, including all materiality, despite remaining as nothing.

0 Replies

The word "nothing" originates from the expression "no thing," which means "no being": it is the negation of being. That's why each being is not nothing, or:

Code:Nothing is not each being.

However, this leads to the following:

Code:Not each being (nothing) is not each being.

Which is just another way of saying that any being is any other being.

However, if you try to "destroy" the concept of "nothing that refers to nothing" so as to get rid of the contradiction, then to what its false version must refer in order to be false?

0 Replies

The concept of nothing is so important that you can reduce all dishonest philosophy to a tentative of neutralizing it.

(And conversely, all tentative of neutralizing it is dishonest philosophy.)

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

You have let yourself become confused by guigus' mad ramblings. It is what he aims to do in order to look like a sensible thinker. But to talk of the form of "nothing" is nonsensical and foolish.

Quote:
By trying to comprehend it, it's given form, which means it's no longer nothing.

This displays the foolishness of it rather well. It might seem like a deep and profound problem, a contradiction that holds some sublime truth, but it is not. It is just a category error where you are assigning attribute of words to what the word means. You might think "nothing" is a thing (no-thing), and therefore the grammatical rules that apply to words about things applies to the word "nothing" as well, and so you think it can have form or whatever, because things have form. But that is just nonsense. The key lies in language, in semantics, as far as philosophy is concerned, this is a dead end issue.

Haha, now that only allows me to see their side better. You both seem rather stuborn. Guigus with his constant "preaching" about "be-ing" and you with your criticism. It's not the idea that's the problem, it's the presentation. You're just butting heads without understanding. Instead of battling your idea's to proven who's right and who's wrong, let them intertwine and mingle. It doesn't matter how ridiculous an idea is. At the very least you'll learn how to better present your argument.

1 Reply

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

Nothing as a being is not a product of our imagination, but rather a product of nothing itself: of its ambiguity. Which is why nothing is indeed "incomprehensible": it is incomprehensible precisely because its being something is not "ridiculous," but rather rigorously true. Ridiculous is trying to make nothing exclusively a non-being: it will always become something on your back, and you are just making yourself too important by thinking this is a product of your imagination.

See, that's what I'm talking about, about changing how you present this idea. You're so swallowed up in your idea that you just keep at it the same way thinking that by saying it over and over again, that it will some how "click" within our minds...that's not the case. Try and listen to our arguments and see how we interpret things so that you can connect the idea with ours to form a "bridge" of "understanding"...so to speak. Not everyone knows what you know so you can't expect us to understand everything that's in that big-o noggin of yours. Why not try to learn how to interpret it for us so that we may better understand.

To me, nothing is incomprehensible because anything that's said about it is something, thus would bring "nothing" into something, thus making it null and void. What I fail to see, is the logic that when nothing is something, that it's "rigourously true" and how it's ridiculous to think of nothing as anything other than even less than "non-being". The only way that I can think that it kind of makes sense, is if you take away all thought of everything so that "no thing" could be explained as "some thing", which would make everything as one in the nothingness. Would that be on the right track?

0 Replies

@Chights47,

This is not overly complicated. A dictionary is sufficient to get the idea of what "nothing" is about. That is the argument I am presenting, and how does that become clearer to anyone by mixing in all the confusion guigus is trying to drown us in?
Perhaps you should go back in the pages of this thread and and see for yourself how the progression has been. From the start guigus has been peddling his bullshit, ignoring any objection presented to him by just posting and reposting the very same few sentences. The only things he's made any efforts to renew are his insults. I've tried in ninety ways to explain to him my point, but if there is one thing he is better at than confusing himself, it is ignoring anyone who isn't impressed by his ramblings.
If you want to look for pearls in this pile of refuse that is your choice.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

...and that's where you fail.

1 Reply

@north,

I can paraphrase you and say that "there was not someTHING in the first place". Have I suggested already (in this thread) that there no things, no static entities, only processes, no being, only becoming (following Nietzsche, of course)?

0 Replies

@Chights47,

What a convincing argument... Rolling Eyes

1 Reply

DOES NOTHING EXIST???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know