Now, I really don't know

I really would like to: :::::::: get to know You



Pleasure to meet your acquaintance.

Arminius: All beginnings are difficult, including the one where relationships are considered. Thank You for the invite.

The pleasure is all mine. Thanks, Ha Ha Ha. Will be looking forward to communicate with You. (If I last here, among so many veteran posters)

You’ll be alright especially with me so long as you’re not an authoritarian or objectivist. :wink:

Ha Ha Ha,

Not at all. under any circumstance. Try to live up to that.

And thank You.

You said: “Nothing ever exists, at all. We just think it does.” (See above.)


Let’s see how language analyst can reduce this dilemma. ‘Nothing’ is a composite of ‘no’ and ‘thing’
Although the roots are identical, the meaning of the former is a conceptual absence, the later connected to nature. (Pierce).

The former is a concept which describes an absence, which is pure abstraction, whereas the later proposition means a negation of a thing. This is a philological distinction made by a number of philosophers. It’s very basic, but exceedingly relevant within the context of our present discussion.

Contrast this concept with Being, and the understanding is clearly differentiated in this way.

But to not to steer too far afield of the solipsistic dilemma, as a propositional value, as far as existence is concerned, existence can be said to have no being where it is grounded in pure ‘nothingness’ rather in an absence of some thing.

In the former, where nothingness and somethingness are relationally void, existential predicates are determined by whether preception of phenomenon, (of an absent object), or nothingness as an understanding of pure reason, of the negation of the general idea of the idea of presence is taken as a precedent. (No thing is the absence- by phenomenal validation), whereas Nothing is a product of the understanding acquired by pure reason.

So when I said 'nothing exist’s I meant it in this sense of philologist meaning interpretation. Nietzche came to be a nihilist, being primarily a philologist prior to becoming a philosopher. He succeeded Kant’s notions.

When we say nothing exists, it is not necessarily a solipsistic proposition, it is categorically a logical analytic within the meaning structure of language it’s self.

Hear this: nothing exists is a tautology, because it treats nothingness in the general sense, as it were some thing.

Later logic of no-thing’ness entails in the specific sense of some thing. It is a minor differance, but it makes a big difference in philosophy.

This has some relevance to the solipsistic charge, but solopsism isn’t taken more in the sense of detachment, alienation, and thinking in a uniquely private state. This is not what I intended with describing my intent within the expression, of not knowing. I meant it in the sense within the differing theories of knowledge.

However, please don’t misunderstands, forey’s into colloquial senses of ‘private languages’ are not excluded from such a discussion, however with the caveat, that such distinctions should be pointed out.

You say that now. No offence, HaHaHa, but I don’t think he knows what he is getting into.

I know the history of the word and concpet “nothing”. If someone says that “there is nothing outside of my perception and thinking”, then this someone is called a “solipsist”, regardless whether differences must be made or not. It does not help, if you change the meaning of “nothing” in order to change the meaning of “solipsist” and vice versa. If I think that there is nothing outside of myself as the subjective I, then I am a solipsist.

That proposition is true, yes, however,it’s only possible in light of the proposition that there exists nothing outside my thoughts.

However to say that something does not exist outside
my own perception is no longer a matter for a philosopher, it is a matter for the psychologist. Perceptions can not be denied, especially in light of esse est percipii. It becomes no longer a matter, as applies to th definition of a tautology, but, a matter of
Describing a state, where something is not well with the organs of perception, or, the mind which perceives.

When I say, I don’t see anything, where there, actually stands a verifiable chair, for instance, by the validation of others, the metaphysical problem of existence can no longer be maintained.