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.
There is nothing that does not exist. <=> Nothing does not exist.
Nothing is by definition not a thing. <=> A thing that is not a thing is not.
What if those words are creations of my mind, SilentSoliloquy?
Saully, you’re confusing yourself unnecessarily.
Though nothing may represent an absence of being it does not make it itself as a place value non-existent.
Words are a creation of your mind.
That is relative nothing. Absolute nothing would be the absence of everything including the place SilentSoliloquy has just given to the phrase “absolute nothing”.
Your words exist. They represent something. You are trying to say that you don’t exist when clearly the very thought of non-existence…exists!
I am not confused, Miss.
You should use quotation marks, like I do. “Nothing” represents an absence of being. Nothing is an absence of being.
And my keyboard?
Everything exists, doesn’t it, Siley? But what is this “everything”? May it not only be my imagination?
No, Saully lol.
It itself represents an absence of being. To do you must be. It is representing. Nothing is a word in a sentence and represents the very thought you are expressing.
Imagination exists, Saully. Imagination is a result of your existence. Your mind houses it. Your mind exists.
A case of bad interpunction. “Nothing is a word in a sentence” means there is no such thing as a word in a sentence; ““Nothing” is a word in a sentence” means the word “nothing” is a word in a sentence.
But how do you know?
Couldn’t it just be your imagination?
If you understand the concept because of the statement, you would need the statement to make the assertion. If this were the case, it would be nonsensical to say that the truth of the statement existed without there being the statement.
The alternative is to claim that the truth is not meant in language, but then you’d hit another one; this statement itself might not be meant and indeed the truth is meant in language.
So you are left with an assertion in a written statement that should be a contradiction, …unless you are a dualist or french deconstructuralist, who not only has proven that talking is nonsesne…but insists on talking the most.
This hasn’t to do with my use of punctuation, does it? My grammar hasn’t to do with the idea I am expressing, does it? You are avoiding these ideas, aren’t you?
That’s what you keep saying. I, however, argue that imagination (or “experience”) is a result of an existence - not necessarily mine. The idea of an “I” may be part of that hallucination. By the way, “mind” is simply a word for the total hallucination, the sum of all impressions. It is not that “I” exist, that “I” “have” a mind, and that “my” mind “houses” “my” imagination; conversely, there is imagination (or experience, or however you wish to call it) and this presupposes, not a mind, not one who “has” a mind, but only an existence, a “being”…
But “[e]ven when I speak completely generally of imagination, like here, do I make a persisting thing out of it.” [Nietzsche, Nachlass.]
Yes, we’ve been over this in another thread.
You have to first exist to house these thoughts which are representing your words into being. These words are not first existent to house you and represent you into being. You did not have these thoughts untill you existed. You created these thoughts, they did not create you.
The world exists, Saully. Whether you want to admit it or not, the world exists. You exist. You create your thoughts. They then exist. Not the other way around.