@fresco,
fresco wrote:
. My own interpretation of "knowhere exists" is that "knowhere" is a concept
To say that nowhere is a concept raises the question, what then is the concept of nowhere? Or, are the concept of nowhere and nowhere identical. In which case, all you are saying is that there is the concept of nowhere, but there is no nowhere. If you don't understand this let me give you a parallel. Suppose someone were to say that mermaid is a concept. Well, that would raise the question, what then would mermaids be? Unless what you are really saying is that there is the concept of mermaid, but there are no mermaids. Which is, of course, quite true. The distinction carefully made by Frege between concept and object should not be confused. One way of confusing them is to say (as you do) that X is a concept when all you mean is that the concept of X is a concept (obviously true) and that only the concept of X exists (but X, itself, does not exist). Then all you are doing is inferring from the premise that the concept of X exists, the conclusion that X (itself) exists. And, as I hope you can see, that inference is fallacious. For instance, although it is true that the concept of mermaid exists, it is false that mermaids exist. Just as, for instance, although it is true that
pictures of mermaids exist, it is not true, and so, does not follow, that mermaids exist. And just as a picture of a mermaid is not a mermaid, so a concept of a mermaid is not a mermaid. Isn't that clear?
