DOES NOTHING EXIST???

From all discussion here so far, it is obvious to me that the difficulty some people have in understanding what I say is that they don't fully realize what nothing means. They inadvertently take nothing for either something or no being without noticing the difference, while acting as if they only did the latter. For some people this is just a lack of attention or care, but for others, this goes on and on and becomes a form of intellectual dishonesty.

For example, "nothing is nothing" can be taken as meaning "no being is a being called nothing" or as "no being is no being." The first assumes nothing to be something, while the second follows its original meaning. The first means that something called nothing has no being, which is just another way of saying what nothing originally means. The second asserts that everything exists, including whatever we know to be nonexistent.

1 Reply

@guigus,

I just did explain to u the diference in between an assumption and something which can be observeble or manifest itself...did u care to read twice?

U have to employ the use of the concept to confront the concept...looool....or should I instead go Harry Potter the thing down? Kind like that which we dont speak of.... Laughing

U are freaking disastrous no less...boy u should get a prize money for your shall I say "uniqueness"...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I just did explain to u the diference in between an assumption and something which can be observeble or manifest itself...did u care to read twice?

U have to employ the use of a concept to confront a concept...looool....

You sentence "nothing is nothing" has two meanings:

1) No being is a being called nothing.
2) No being is no being.

The first assumes nothing to be something, then denying its existence, which means not only that whatever we call nothing must not exist, but also that nonexistence is a being.

The second asserts that every being is a being, rather than being nothing.

Your statement "there is no nothing" can only make sense if we take nothing to be something, thus denying the existence of that something. But what is that something? If nothing is not a being, then we cannot even deny that it exists in the first place. And if it exists, then our denying its existence is a lie.

Now I hope you stop laughing for a moment and think a little for a change.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Or a third option Guigus...A concept which we call no thing (Nothing) which exists as an assumption may or may not correspond to something...to confront it I must first assert what concept I am speaking of...

but further in the case the very concept deny´s itself which makes it a first order mistake !

Allow me to ask u if your parents ask for a refund already ? because I am seriously considering the odds...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Or a third option Guigus...A concept which we call no thing (Nothing) which exists as an assumption may or may not correspond to something...to confront it I must first assert what concept I am speaking of...

but further in the case the very concept deny´s itself which makes it a first order mistake !

Allow me to ask u if your parents ask for a refund already ? because I am seriously considering the odds...

That strategy of personal insults as an expedient for argument exhaustion is exclusive to absolute morons. And when they use it against someone they don't even know, then you can start talking about double absolute morons.

But I deserve that: someone have warned me to stop discussing with you, and I didn't listen.

PS: its "denies," not "deny's."

1 Reply

@guigus,

Let me lend u a hand lad...I am charitable in the face of tremendous failure...

your counter should go around the idea that we can´t deny or assert whatever on nothingness once we don´t actually know to what the concept refers to...

...there...play with the new toy lad ! Cool

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Let me lend u a hand lad...I am charitable in the face of tremendous failure...

your counter should go around the idea that we can´t deny or assert whatever on nothingness once we don´t actually know to what the concept refers to...

...there...play with the new toy lad !

You really don't know what nothing means. Neither you are capable of an honest, civilized conversation.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Your presence in this forum is an insult to anyone which cares to listen or to actually think upon any subject...so far your only achievement was to trash this and other threads to the lowest possible...my action against your insulting stupidity can´t even measure or compare to the presumptuous pompous amalgam of sheer nonsense that we all have to put up with...you are that kind of person who seriously makes me doubt upon the future and the value of democracy...thankfully your degree of dumbness is such that you fall off into a minute minority not a majority...Goodbye !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

The word "nothing" originates from "no thing," which means "no being." It is the negation of being. So your assertion that "nothing is nothing" means that "no being is no being," which in turn means there is no being such that it has no being. For the sentence "nothing is nothing" to mean---as you want---that there is no such thing as nothing, the meaning of "nothing" must change to rather "something." That's what you are failing to grasp.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Your presence in this forum is an insult to anyone which cares to listen or to actually think upon any subject...so far your only achievement was to trash this and other threads to the lowest possible...my action against your insulting stupidity can´t even measure or compare to the presumptuous pompous amalgam of sheer nonsense that we all have to put up with...you are that kind of person who seriously makes me doubt upon the future and the value of democracy...thankfully your degree of dumbness is such that you fall off into a minute minority not a majority...Goodbye !

Amazing, I make all these words mine regarding you. Thanks for saving me the time of writing. And please don't come back.

0 Replies

@guigus,

look at u...

"there is no being such that it has no being."

...u are asserting that there is no being that has whatever no being...

I can´t start to count the number of falacys u are assuming in there...

...again there's simply not any chance of me getting inside that head of yours and open it to shred some light in it...it is pointless therefore to keep addressing you and your attention craving nonsense...all the best to you honestly... in the future please don´t address my posts and I will do the same.

3 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

look at u...

"there is no being such that it has no being."

...u are asserting that there is no being that has whatever no being...

I can´t start to count the number of falacys u are assuming in there...

...again there's simply not any chance of me getting inside that head of yours and open it to shred some light in it...it is pointless therefore to keep addressing you and your attention craving nonsense...all the best to you honestly... in the future please don´t address my posts and I will do the same.

Weren't you leaving? Oh, I see... that was just a scene... By the way, don't you get tired of insulting people? Why don't you try to seriously think about something (or nothing) for a change? And what about being honest with yourself?

PS: it is "fallacies," not "falacys" (falacys are fallacies bought on Macy's).

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

look at u...

"there is no being such that it has no being."

...u are asserting that there is no being that has whatever no being...

I can´t start to count the number of falacys u are assuming in there...

...again there's simply not any chance of me getting inside that head of yours and open it to shred some light in it...it is pointless therefore to keep addressing you and your attention craving nonsense...all the best to you honestly... in the future please don´t address my posts and I will do the same.

And since, as you remembered so well, we are still in a democracy, I will address whatever posts I want whenever I want, even if you feel outraged with my doing so without your permission, my fuhrer.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

look at u...

"there is no being such that it has no being."

...u are asserting that there is no being that has whatever no being...

Are you assuming (again) that "no being" is a being?

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I can´t start to count the number of falacys u are assuming in there...

That's unnecessary: pointing one would suffice.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...again there's simply not any chance of me getting inside that head of yours and open it to shred some light in it...

If you could actually get inside my head, then it would be my head to shred some light at yours, my dark dear.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

it is pointless therefore to keep addressing you and your attention craving nonsense...all the best to you honestly... in the future please don´t address my posts and I will do the same.

The most funny word in this last paragraph was "therefore"...

0 Replies

The word "nothing" negates any and every single being: nothing is not any and every single being. However, we say that nothing "is," that "it" this and "it" that, as if it were something. Why? Well, since the meaning of nothing is both not any single being and not every single being, it means that not any single being is not every single being, hence that any being is any other being. So to say "nothing" is the same as to say that "any being is any other being": nothing is everything, which is why we can talk about "it" as "being" whatever it is.

We can confirm this by thinking about being itself, which is both all and each being: as each particular being is not all being, being---as each being---is not being---as all being---hence is nothing.

Either way, being and nothingness are the same.

0 Replies

A more practical way of understanding why being and nothingness are the same, although not a logically rigorous one, is this:

None of us can have a full-blown experience of being, including each and all being, as also none of us can have a full-blown experience of nothing, excluding each and all being. By which being and nothingness are in practice the same.

But as I said, this is just a practical assessment of the problem, not a properly theoretical one: its logically rigorous assessment is the one I have already presented, by which being and nothingness are by definition the same, which explains their practical identity.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Allow me to ask u if your parents ask for a refund already ? because I am seriously considering the odds...

Is this what your parents did? That would explain why you don't stop insulting other people... Sorry, just wondering.

0 Replies

In practice, none of us can have a full-blown experience of being, including each and all being, just like none of us can have a full-blown experience of nothing, excluding each and all being. By which being and nothingness are, in practice, the same.

What about in theory?

Well, whatever is our theory about it, such a theory must explain why being and nothingness are, in practice, the same. Otherwise, it will not be much of a theory. Besides, by insisting that being and nothingness are just different, we create an eternal abyss between theory and practice, since we will never have a full-blown experience of either being or nothingness to make them "just different" in practice.

Indeed, being and nothingness are the same in theory as well:

The word "nothing" negates any and every single being: nothing is not any and every single being. Then, because the meaning of nothing is both not any single being and not every single being, it means that not any single being is not every single being, hence that any being is any other being. So to say "nothing" is the same as to say that "any being is any other being": nothing is everything, which is precisely why we can talk about "it" as "being" whatever it is.

We can confirm this by thinking about being itself, which is both all and each being: as each particular being is not all being, being---as each being---is not being---as all being---hence is nothing.

1 Reply

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

In practice, none of us can have a full-blown experience of being, including each and all being, just like none of us can have a full-blown experience of nothing, excluding each and all being. By which being and nothingness are, in practice, the same.

You have forgotten what you already know or you are outright lying about knowing it. Just because you haven't had a "full-blown experience of 'Be'-ing" doesn't mean that "none of us can have a full-blown experience of 'Be'-ing". More accurately said, "A full-blown experience of 'Be'-ing-there".

It is truly imbecilic of you to propose that you are the 'litmus test' for the rest of us on the planet. That statement you made let's the rest of us know not to put too much stock in what you have to say.

Thanks for the warning.

2 Replies

@Dasein,

I think he's getting ready to pull out a straw from his back pocket to spit that right back at you..................DUCK!!!

1 Reply

DOES NOTHING EXIST???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know