This is where I feel the urge to slap you upside the head, Saully.
Language is used to represent a place value, right? Value of our thoughts, right?
So is the number 0 but don’t go saying it’s not a number because it represents nothing because it is a number just as nothing is the value of something.
I’ll flesh out a couple of points. I don’t usually quote, but it might be useful here.
“An understanding of Being is always already contained in everything we apprehend in beings”.
I respond to statements like this with “Okay. 'Nuff said, then.”
Now, he soon says “If one says accordingly that “Being” is the most universal concept, that cannot mean that it is the clearest and that it needs no further discussion”.
Wrong.
“The concept of “Being” is undefinable”.
Correct.
So we can’t sensibly talk about it.
“The undefinability of being does not dispense with the question of its meaning but compels that question”.
He is, of course, anticipating objections by the time he writes Being and Time.
“Being is the self-evident concept.”
Correct.
Of course, B & T is all about refuting these ideas. He also produces some tellingly thorough apologetics for the fact that he spends virtually his entire career on the question of Being.
I would simply like for someone to tell me the answer he has found. I believe that he does wind up with a method, but it is a method for a method. We must interpret the world by interpreting it. And this interpretaion, or interpreting, has as its object not the transcendence of one sphere to another, but of transcendence itself.
What the fuck does that mean?
Universalism is always nonsensical as a philosphical basis. He doesn’t escape Aristotle or Hegel, even as he flees.
I’m still open to anyone who wishes to answer, or otherwise dispense with my questions.
So your cogito ergo sum is “I do, therefore I am”, right? But what do you mean by “do”?
I’ll put it this way since it seems as though I’ve stumbled upon an equal place value, 0.
When we use the word “nothing” we are using the number 0. Nothing has a place and 0 has a place. 0 is used to form mathematical equations and nothing is used to form sentences. To form a sentence with the word “nothing” you must be giving nothing a place value or else it cannot be in a sentence. To use the number 0 you must be giving it a place value or else it cannot be in a mathematical equation. This value is its being. Its place. If it does not have a place it just can’t be. See?
Nothing can be a confusing word to represent the absence of something as a value but it is a value, it is a place, and it is a being.
SS - that is, in part, Heidegger’s thesis, all right. But “nothing” can also be used as “nullset” or “empty set” in regular language. This is one way of stating Heidegger. An empty set is not strictly “nothing” The set itself exists. This is not a problem in mathematics, but Heidegger confuses the set (which exists) with its contents (which do not). Even where he doesn’t, any formulation that concludes a null set is always trivial.
I cannot escape that we have the choice between calling his thesis either nonsensical or trivial.
Well, here’s what he’s doing. He’s saying that there can be a mathematical equation using 0…without 0. That there can be a sentence using the word nothing…without the word nothing.
Bogus. There can’t. 0 and nothing hold it together. They are the beings that make it.
It’s trivial 'cause it ain’t true. It’s logically inept.
Yeah SS. It’s one or the other. I am trying to give a charitable reading its due. But basically I agree. Even the most charitable reading I can find doesn’t seem to help his case.
And stop being so bright, dudette. It’s annoying.
Well, not really.
If I say “That glass is not empty”, then what I’m really saying is: “That glass, empty, is not” - “That empty glass is not.”
A, to B, pointing at a full glass: “That empty glass does not exist.”
B, confused: “What empty glass!”
A, smugly: “See?”
Yes, it’s being used with a place value, therefore, it exists. Be it 0 or nothing, it exists for crying out loud.
It doesn’t lose its symbolic place for being metaphorical. You made a “non-existent” glass with your mind, the non-existent glass is the object you made, so it can’t be non-existent even if only existing under ideal terms because “non-existence” also has place value.
Sauwelios - There is a difference between particulars and universals.
A separate point - “That empty glass does not exist” is nonsense. Because of the word “that”.
To avoid full notation, “That glass is not empty” = ~(empty glass). The glass exists, here.
“That empty glass does not exist” is not a statement at all; it’s giggerish.
It is not “~(empty) glass”, nor is it “~(empty glass)” nor is it “~glass” (in any state).
An empty set can be that empty set. But its contents can’t be that nothing. It’s that nothing that is in question in Heidegger. But that is gibberish, also.
I am not sure what point you are making.
So the empty glass and the full glass are equally real, eh?
They share an equal value. 
Why are you telling me this? What are you referring to?
What does “~” mean?
It seems that you are approaching the problem from a mathematical, I from a linguistic perspective.
I think there is a difference between absolute nothing and relative nothing. Relative nothing does have a place value. Absolute nothing does not. It is the absence of everything (including all places).
You said: “You made a “non-existent” glass with your mind”. How do you know you didn’t make your monitor with your mind?
There can’t be absence of all places because even our thoughts have places. Even our thoughts come from somewhere. Nothing=0. They still have places. Even when you say nothing it must have a place and being to be nothing.
Precisely! There can’t be absence from all places! Therefore, absolute nothing doesn’t exist! But that is precisely the definition of absolute nothing…
If you do so much as say it, it has a place. There cannot be anything that does not exist. “absolute nothing” has just been said, given a place.
So: absolute nothing does not exists, because there exists something (indeed, everything - by definition). We disagree, however, as to what this something is. Or rather, we do not know everything that exists, or perhaps we do, but then we do not know that we do; I, however, ask: what do we know, what are we absolutely certain of that exists? -
Your words exist. That’s all you’re basing it off of. That’s how you know.
This is similiar to Sartre. He says that “nothing” can be concieved when, for example, you “walk into a room and realize Pierre’s absence.” The fact that he is not there is paradoxically becomming an object of consciousness and is at the level of awareness and contemplation, since reflecting on this fact while it happens is the rule in progress.
So here a non-existent is real as an object of thought. You “notice” a negative.