non-existence?

[simona]

Do you think that non-existence can be a form of existence?

[Charles Darnay]

no. If something exists to an extent - whatever the extent may be - it exists and therefore is not non-existant.

Airstotle's fundamental rule - Something cannot be and not be at the saeme time.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Half a bee, philosophically, must ipso facto half not be, but half a bee has got to be, vis a vis it's entity - D'you see?
But can a bee be said to be, or not to be, an entire bee, when half the bee is not a bee, due to some ancient injury?

From Monty Python's "Eric the half a bee". I think this sums this thread up quite well. :lol:

[Charles Darnay]

hahahhaha..... I remember that

[aljurado]

Do you think that non-existence can be a form of existence?
it is simply a negative form of existence. To be or not to be, bouth are form of being.. at least gramaticaly. Am I wrong?

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Seriously, I suppose it depends on what doesn't exist.

Mythological beasts such as dragons, centaurs, manticores and the like, do not exist. But they have 'an existence' because of their place in literature, ancient legends, etc. We all know what a dragon looks like (several versions, I would imagine) from films, books, paintings of St Gerge, etc. There are no dragons in the real world but there are plenty in our imaginations - is this to be classed as a kind of existence?

My point is, if something is sufficient a part of our culture to be worthy of being dismissed as non-existent, then paradoxically, it has an existence of sorts, albeit an intangible, non-physical one!

The really non-existent things are the ones we never think about either existing or not existing - things like.... oops, nearly summoned something into (non)existence there! Better be careful about that. :lol:

[beer good]

Astronomer/philosopher/sci-fi author Peter Nilson once wrote something like this (quickly translated at a late hour):


In the library of the observatory in Ondrejov above Prague I once found a catalogue of stars that astounded me. It had hundreds of pages with tables of stars that had been observed and confirmed to exist. Towards the end there was a table of stars thought to have been observed but confirmed to NOT exist. But to my astonishment, at the back of the volume I found a list of stars which had never been observed and did not exist. Perhaps the most amazing thing about the universe is that we could create an infinite catalogue of things, worlds and beings that no one has seen and which do not exist. Each story in the realm of fiction is a small part of that catalogue.

[Virgil]

You know, I was about to laugh this thread off with one of my usual flippant (to some arrogant :D ) statements. But when I read just now Xamonas and beer's posts I thought, "yeah, there is a way for something to be in existence and simultaneously not." Cool points, guys.

[rachel]

Seriously, I suppose it depends on what doesn't exist.

Mythological beasts such as dragons, centaurs, manticores and the like, do not exist. But they have 'an existence' because of their place in literature, ancient legends, etc. We all know what a dragon looks like (several versions, I would imagine) from films, books, paintings of St Gerge, etc. There are no dragons in the real world but there are plenty in our imaginations - is this to be classed as a kind of existence?

My point is, if something is sufficient a part of our culture to be worthy of being dismissed as non-existent, then paradoxically, it has an existence of sorts, albeit an intangible, non-physical one!

The really non-existent things are the ones we never think about either existing or not existing - things like.... oops, nearly summoned something into (non)existence there! Better be careful about that. :lol:


what an awesome explanation Xamonas. Almost enchanting.
I am currently reading the Letters of JRRTolkien and he talks about his 'sub creation' and how by adding the detailed appendices his readers feel they have entered a real world and they in their mind go there and inhabit it. They think about it in the everyday world and it is as real and tangible to them as a rock in this world is when we pick it up and feel it's cold edges.
Santa Claus, and many others are as real to some as we are to one another.
Or perhaps we have all been so pisky mazed on this forum that none of us are really talking to anyone real at all! :D

[IrishCanadian]

Woah, rachel, you just boggled my mind!
What if all of you in this forum are nothing but the random yet arithmatical trappings of the internet that i talk to. Okay so i had a long day and am not quit thinking strieght.
I'm waiting for Descarte to enter stage left. How do we know that this computer (etc.) exists? Or maybe that idea is just too painful.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Woah, rachel, you just boggled my mind!
What if all of you in this forum are nothing but the random yet arithmatical trappings of the internet that i talk to. Okay so i had a long day and am not quit thinking strieght.
I'm waiting for Descarte to enter stage left. How do we know that this computer (etc.) exists? Or maybe that idea is just too painful.

Actually, I wrote the program that produces Irish's posts about a year ago. He's not really there at all, just a set of impulses buzzing around silicon chips in cyberspace.

Had you going, didn't I?

(PS. Irish doesn't know this, so I'll expect he'll probably get indignant about his reality next - just watch!)

[XXdarkclarityXX]

In my opinion, existence is relative and need not be tangible. Thoughts exist if you think them, do they not? The relativity of existence arises from its dependence upon the senses and the uniqueness of the mind. Regarding the senses- How do we know that something exists? All we really know is that it exists to us. If we feel tired or awake is real because we ourselves know it. However, we don't really know the physical or emotional condition of another individual...we have to go on what others tell us. Regarding the uniqueness of the mind- How is that we are able to think about things like the meaning of life and come up with slighty different variations of its definition? How is that something can be explained to a group of individuals and each person in the group can picture it differently? This occurs because of the simple fact that we are all different, so we do things differently. So, naturally, we have different facets to our existence, as well as what exists around us. How do we know the sky is blue? Do we all see "blue" or do we just use the word "blue" as a designator? There is no way to tell.

Back to nonexistence: I believe it is a form of existence because nothing can ever truly not exist. The fact that it doesn't exist means that it has to be something. How can nothing not exist? Something has to not exist, and therefore it has existence. Also, I believe nonexistence is relative as well. Amnesia is an excellent example of this. Should I lose my memory, not a whole lot exists to me anymore because most of what exists to us in in our minds in the form of memories and such. Take the example of me losing my memory and not remembering having a father. Would my mother then say that her husband no longer existed? Of course not. Well, that is my thoughts on this subject.

[IrishCanadian]

Actually, I wrote the program that produces Irish's posts about a year ago. He's not really there at all, just a set of impulses buzzing around silicon chips in cyberspace.

Had you going, didn't I?

(PS. Irish doesn't know this, so I'll expect he'll probably get indignant about his reality next - just watch!)

Number 5 alive!
This new information has caused me to short circut because i cannot fathom the depths of anything beyond my own existence.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Amnesia is an excellent example of this. Should I lose my memory, not a whole lot exists to me anymore because most of what exists to us in in our minds in the form of memories and such. Take the example of me losing my memory and not remembering having a father. Would my mother then say that her husband no longer existed? Of course not. Well, that is my thoughts on this subject.

This reminds me of a short story I read. The gist of it is that there is an old man that suddenly develops the ability to disbelieve things out of creation. As he is old, becoming senile, and cantankerous as hell, he soon causes a few problems by uttering phrases such as, "Timbuktoo? Never heard of it! There's no such place as Timbuktoo!" Of course, Timbuktoo disappears from all maps and memories instantly.

The ending is that, following a head injury (if I remember correctly), he is asked, "How are you Fred (or whatever his name was)?" Of course he answers, "Fred? Never heard of him! There's no such..."

I can't remember who wrote the story, I've a feeling it may have been Theodore Sturgeon. It really made me laugh when I read it though.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Number 5 alive!
This new information has caused me to short circut because i cannot fathom the depths of anything beyond my own existence.

Sadly, I did a much worse job writing this program than I thought. I'll try and get it back online ASAP. I only hope that my programmer did a better job. :eek2:

[rachel]

Not in a kazillion years dear genius could you ever make up or write the words for Irish, because in order to do so you would have to understand the mind of someone who believes in Intelligent design and I have noticed that according to you atheists are allergic to bananas, perhaps slightly to avacados, swill beer like members of the White Company and are generally hopeless. Nope, cannot be done. Which means someone else has been programming what Xamonas has posted and somehow got him mixed up with a Christian. sigh that's how it goes I guess with non existance.

[IrishCanadian]

Thanks rachel.
Okay so the discussion from Descarte never happened (as i predicted) ... but i think this is St. Thomas Acquinas' que: ... oh wait, i was about to talk about intelligent design and the "unmoved mover" concept regaurding the lack of nothingness. Seems rachel beat me to it. Well you can disregaurd this post ... unless your programmed to respond to it.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Not in a kazillion years dear genius could you ever make up or write the words for Irish, because in order to do so you would have to understand the mind of someone who believes in Intelligent design and I have noticed that according to you atheists are allergic to bananas, perhaps slightly to avacados, swill beer like members of the White Company and are generally hopeless. Nope, cannot be done. Which means someone else has been programming what Xamonas has posted and somehow got him mixed up with a Christian. sigh that's how it goes I guess with non existance.

Nobody programmed me - I don't exist - neither do you - fortunately, that means that in a manner of speaking we do exist (not that we do). And because we don't exist (even though we do really) we don't know whether we exist or not, (or whether we just think that we don't not exist, and in a round about way actually do have a non-existence which is tantamount to existence but not actually equal or in any way anything like it), or not. That's about as clear as I can make it. Hope it helps your understanding a little.

And, if I'm truthful (which is a whole other thread) Irish actually programmed me - but I programmed him to do so - why he made me allergic to bananas, I have no idea. I just have faith ( in which I don’t believe) that he had a good (or bad) reason for it (albeit a non-existent reason).

The only thing I know in this world is that bananas exist, they hurt my mouth, and they dance! :banana:

[IrishCanadian]

You are a cool dude Xamonas Chegwe! I made you that way! ... I had to sacrifice your tolerance for bananas in order for you to be a cool dude. In the meantime ... we must exist because we think (Descarte is my friend ... or he would be if he existed).

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Ah, yes of course, the old banana / coolness gene (which doesn't exist naturally), how could I have forgotten? Now everything makes sense; as does nothing.

[rachel]

Nobody programmed me - I don't exist - neither do you - fortunately, that means that in a manner of speaking we do exist (not that we do). And because we don't exist (even though we do really) we don't know whether we exist or not, (or whether we just think that we don't not exist, and in a round about way actually do have a non-existence which is tantamount to existence but not actually equal or in any way anything like it), or not. That's about as clear as I can make it. Hope it helps your understanding a little.

And, if I'm truthful (which is a whole other thread) Irish actually programmed me - but I programmed him to do so - why he made me allergic to bananas, I have no idea. I just have faith ( in which I don’t believe) that he had a good (or bad) reason for it (albeit a non-existent reason).

The only thing I know in this world is that bananas exist, they hurt my mouth, and they dance! :banana:


Pefectly clear to me Xamonas but since I programmed you I feel it is the least I can do to ask forgiveness for the banana thing, I never meant to think it up but tiring of nonexistance I existed for a little and a fuzzy hazy thought began to emerge and I called it Xamonas. But promptly forgot it or that I existed until I read your posts. yawn I am weary and will go nye night now. not that I really am mind you or that I really AM but you get the picture....

[Joakim]

A little joke I heard the other day about
Descartes going in to a bar and having a drink and when the bartender asks if he would like another one Descartes says
- I think not
And disappears

(Oh im so funny ;p)

Most of the ancient Greeks claim that non-existence does not exist. I think they may be right.
Get the point of nothing and everything comes back to you.
Unfortunately you will never be able to explain that in an intelligible way, I gave up trying yesterday.
Sorry if I am being vague or seem completely insane :P

[IrishCanadian]

Good joke friend. Insane!??! I programmed you that way! thers no need for you to be sorry about it. Well I guess we have all been acting perfectly normal on this thread so far ... so your insanity is pure alien. Nevertheless I had to programme you that way ... otherwise you would dislike bananas.

[Evergreenleaf]

Most of the ancient Greeks claim that non-existence does not exist. I think they may be right.
Get the point of nothing and everything comes back to you.
Unfortunately you will never be able to explain that in an intelligible way, I gave up trying yesterday.
Sorry if I am being vague or seem completely insane :P

Hey, that kind of makes sense... I mean, if you start thinking "this thing doesn't exist" then it has a kind of existence in your thoughts.

After all, since all we have with which to perceive the world is our own sensory organs and our own brains, how can we know that what we see is real? There is no way for us to double check.

So, therefore, if our own thoughts determine for us what is "real," then whatever is in our thoughts is "real." Nothing else can be, to us, because there is no way for us to contemplate it beyond our thoughts.

I kind of feel like I probably just repeated someone without recognizing it. And also that I just wrote a huge muddle of nonsense. Oh well, that's what a lot of philosophy is until you really think about it for a long time.

[IrishCanadian]

So, therefore, if our own thoughts determine for us what is "real," then whatever is in our thoughts is "real." Nothing else can be, to us, because there is no way for us to contemplate it beyond our thoughts.
Careful ... thats soft ground to tread on. While what you say is true, we must keep in mind that if two individuals that percieve things differently have opposeing views on a subject thenat least one of them must be wrong. (Thus enters my anticipated discussion of Descarte) The only thing one can truely be aware of is oneself since he/she experience the physical existance by the need of the cognitive existance (which we "know") to have a container. All else is heresay of our fallable senses.
This is where I consider existance a single step further--
As our minds need a container on order to function as they do so do our bodies, the container of the mind, need a container. And so on and so forth. And so one must trust his/her sences. For no matter how "a priori" we are (that is no matter how much of what we are was previously created in anticipaton of this life) some is "tabula rasa" (blank slate). In other words, we are all partially shapped by the world around us. This shaping also shapes our cognitive existance. Therefore, as we are aware of ourselves by means of thinking then we are also aware of the world around us by means of the way it alters our thinking.
Okay so I see the holes in my idea ... but when I finish this HumSci course I'm taking I'll have quotes from smart people to back that up ... I hope.

[Orionsbelt]

I once knew an Irish poet
Full of life but he didn’t know it
An impression he’d strike
With bits and a byte
On windows where others could show it

out from within
The verse he would spin
Were viewed on the literature forum
Riverun round the Irishman found
The bytes were all just Fin agin

[IrishCanadian]

Wow ... (sob sob) that is just ... so beautiful. I thik I have some tears comming.
Thanks Orionsbelt. I feel appreciated. (Smiles)

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Listen to him - He thinks that poem actually existed! :lol: (Or at least that's what he'd think if he existed.)

But what do I know anyway? I don't exist either.

(With a quiet cough-like sound, Xamonas Chegwé disappears into his own non-existent existentialism. All that remains is the faint smell of bananas...)

[IrishCanadian]

Mmmmm i wish i had the existential capacity to appreciate those beautiful bananas.

[Evergreenleaf]

Careful ... thats soft ground to tread on. While what you say is true, we must keep in mind that if two individuals that percieve things differently have opposeing views on a subject thenat least one of them must be wrong. (Thus enters my anticipated discussion of Descarte) The only thing one can truely be aware of is oneself since he/she experience the physical existance by the need of the cognitive existance (which we "know") to have a container. All else is heresay of our fallable senses.
This is where I consider existance a single step further--
As our minds need a container on order to function as they do so do our bodies, the container of the mind, need a container. And so on and so forth. And so one must trust his/her sences. For no matter how "a priori" we are (that is no matter how much of what we are was previously created in anticipaton of this life) some is "tabula rasa" (blank slate). In other words, we are all partially shapped by the world around us. This shaping also shapes our cognitive existance. Therefore, as we are aware of ourselves by means of thinking then we are also aware of the world around us by means of the way it alters our thinking.
Okay so I see the holes in my idea ... but when I finish this HumSci course I'm taking I'll have quotes from smart people to back that up ... I hope.

Erm... Well, the first part I understand. I think that's what I was saying. But the second part, where you "consider existence a single step further", I do not understand. I actually think we are in agreement here, but I'm not sure.

[Orionsbelt]

Why thank you Irish. You needn't cry. So Kant in critic of pure reason says we know two things a priori. ourselves and not ourselves (space) and sequence of experience (time). Descartes I think therefore I am... or maybe I am therefore I think ??? or I think I am here anyway... Both seem to recognize this self awareness thing as the defining parameter. As everyone here seems to have said. So in the end bananas only exist only if you exist? But as far as one or another having to be wrong while preceiving a given thing. I refer you to nine blind men each touching part of an elephant (tusk, tail, trunk, ear, leg, belly, etc) and each describing the elephant to each other. Which elephant exists???? or do they all exist as impression on our senses. What if we are all just nerve endings in a giant laviathon who is actually preceiving the real event and we are just reporting our blind man's impression on a smaller part. What really exists is then just the consensus of our individual impressions. Then something that is collectively agreed would have to exist outside the whole of the collection or there could be no consesus. Or it would all be just an amazing collage of our collective imaginations when in fact we have all been looking at the same banana that is not a banana at all. This is bananas!

[blp]

Mythological beasts such as dragons, centaurs, manticores and the like, do not exist. But they have 'an existence' because of their place in literature, ancient legends, etc. We all know what a dragon looks like (several versions, I would imagine) from films, books, paintings of St Gerge, etc. There are no dragons in the real world but there are plenty in our imaginations - is this to be classed as a kind of existence?

My point is, if something is sufficient a part of our culture to be worthy of being dismissed as non-existent, then paradoxically, it has an existence of sorts, albeit an intangible, non-physical one!

The really non-existent things are the ones we never think about either existing or not existing - things like.... oops, nearly summoned something into (non)existence there! Better be careful about that. :lol:

This is not quite right, Xamonas. The imaginary things themselves don't exist. The idea of them is what exists.

This kind of thinking, slung around sloppily, gives a lot of undeserved succor to religious types and, in general, people who want to believe what they want to believe regardless of the evidence. A version of it's even been used as a proof of God - though not a very convincing one in my view. It's called the ontological proof of the existence of God: for the idea of God to exist in our minds, there must have been a God to put it there. There. You pretty much only have to think of Unicorns to see a fallacy.


Back to nonexistence: I believe it is a form of existence because nothing can ever truly not exist. The fact that it doesn't exist means that it has to be something. How can nothing not exist? Something has to not exist, and therefore it has existence. Also, I believe nonexistence is relative as well. Amnesia is an excellent example of this. Should I lose my memory, not a whole lot exists to me anymore because most of what exists to us in in our minds in the form of memories and such. Take the example of me losing my memory and not remembering having a father. Would my mother then say that her husband no longer existed? Of course not. Well, that is my thoughts on this subject.

Aren't you confusing non-existence with nothingness. The existence of nothingness is another debate, but the only things that have to be something are the things that exist.

The rest of what you say is just more special pleading for extreme subjectivity - and rather surprising from an otherwise sensible atheist.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

blp. You are being a bit disingenuous there. You misrepresent the ontological argument quite horribly. From what I've read of your previous posts, I'm sure you have a better understanding than that.
In actual fact, the original ontological argument (Anselm of Canterbury's version) states that because we can conceive of a perfect being, with all possible perfections, and because one of those perfections is the fact of existence (because non-existence would be a lesser quality than existence), such a being (ie. God) exists.
There are many other variations on this and many many more refutations. My favourite is that such a being, as defined, would also possess perfect evil, perfect stupidity, perfect boredom, etc. Remember, a prime condition was the possession of all perfections.

And I never said that imaginary things exist. I merely attributed to them "an existence of sorts"; equivalent, if you prefer, to the existence of the idea of them.

But think on that for a moment. Do ideas exist? Do emotions exist? How about delusions and hallucinations? Concepts and philosophies? Does the ontological argument itself exist? Is existence a property of physical objects only?

Does the meaning of this sentence exist? What about to someone that can't read English? Or to an imbecile; or a chimp?

I hold that ideas are "a type of existence", as I stated above; and further, that imaginary beasts (and yes, God too) has this kind of existence. I should perhaps have been more specific about which kind of existence I was talking about.

I love ontological philosophy. Unfortunately, when I post here, I am nowhere near as precise in my words to do it justice; I'm usually just throwing a quick thought into the mix.

[Nymo]

Many have not seen or heard God yet they have faith he does exist. Understanding is having faith in what does exist in our souls; knowing it may not always be present in our minds.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Many have not seen or heard God yet they have faith he does exist. Understanding is having faith in what does exist in our souls; knowing it may not always be present in our minds.

Nymo,

Your first sentence is just a true statement about religious belief. I have no problem with that.

But I'm afraid that the second sentence makes no sense to me. Can you rephrase it please? How can someone know something that is not in their mind? If it is not in the mind, it is not known.

[blp]

blp. You are being a bit disingenuous there. You misrepresent the ontological argument quite horribly. From what I've read of your previous posts, I'm sure you have a better understanding than that.


Lovely - praised with faint damnation. But too kind in this instance. I just explained it as I'd had it explained to me.

Crazy to risk turning this into yet another existence of god debate anyway. I think we;ve got enough of that going on here as it is.

[chef]

something that is non-existence can't be existence because then it's not non-existence. existence is to be here right now in this second or life, non-existence is the absents of existence, the absents of being here right now in this second or life.

[Evergreenleaf]

Very literal and practical of you, chef. Aside from philosophical debates and musings, that's a workable definition for everyday life.

[chef]

thanks :)
jiji

[chef]

and i gess that if i am going to say something in a philosophical debate it should be related to philosophy...

[Evergreenleaf]

Well that was. Pragmatism is a philosophy. Sometimes it seems like philosophy is all completely abstract and "out there," but not all of it is.

[chef]

i don't want to be mean but i didn't understand what you ment

[Evergreenleaf]

Oh. Sorry chef, my fault. Sometimes I don't make sense even to myself.

I only meant that when you gave a practical definition you were being philosophical, since philosophy can be practical. So you were indeed saying something related to philosophy.

And so that I don't feel like I'm hijacking the thread, I'll contribute something again...

I agree with Xamonas about there being different kinds of existence, such as a physical kind and an idea kind. I wonder, however, if there is a hole in this theory, because otherwise there would be nothing to debate, and obviously we have a lot of debating going on here.

[chef]

WOW thats cool thanks and sorry it just takes me some time for it to click in

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Lovely - praised with faint damnation. But too kind in this instance. I just explained it as I'd had it explained to me.

Crazy to risk turning this into yet another existence of god debate anyway. I think we;ve got enough of that going on here as it is.

Praised with faint damnation - love it! :nod:

[The Unnamable]

Most of the ancient Greeks claim that non-existence does not exist. I think they may be right.
Startling revelation of the millennium! :D Where would we be without those ancient Greeks? :D

[silence782]

Can there be a non-existance without an existence?

[Nymo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nymo
"Many have not seen or heard God yet they have faith he does exist. Understanding is having faith in what does exist in our souls; knowing it may not always be present in our minds."


Quote:
Oringinally Post by Xamonas Chegwe

"Your first sentence is just a true statement about religious belief. I have no problem with that."

"But I'm afraid that the second sentence makes no sense to me. Can you rephrase it please? How can someone know something that is not in their mind? If it is not in the mind, it is not known."
__________________________________________________ ____________

If we all persist in believing that we can know all that can be known; an infinite understanding which we do not process. Then we are only trying to invoke others and ourselves of what does not exist.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Can there be a non-existance without an existence?

Are you saying that (the differences in spelling aside) they can both be true? Can something both exist and not exist? Surely, the existence of something implies the falsity of it's non-existence; and vice-versa?

Or am I missing something in your argument?

And Nymo,

You just repeated my last post. It now exists twice. Why? It was hardly profound. :lol:

[IrishCanadian]

I refer you to nine blind men each touching part of an elephant (tusk, tail, trunk, ear, leg, belly, etc) and each describing the elephant to each other. Which elephant exists???? or do they all exist as impression on our senses. What if we are all just nerve endings in a giant laviathon who is actually preceiving the real event and we are just reporting our blind man's impression on a smaller part. What really exists is then just the consensus of our individual impressions.
What really exists has nothing to do with consenses of impressions. We cannot create something by percieving it. However, what we know exists is that consenses ... if those blind people cooperated articulately they would soon enough realize presicely what an elephant is. We are, however, capable of being wrong. This capability enables truth to be independant of cognition.
Any one want a banana ...the one I percieve or the one you percieve (mine are better) ...?

[Nymo]

Why? Because I’m new here.

Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
“How can someone know something that is not in their mind? If it is not in the mind, it is not known.”

How did you know what did not exist before my reply. That my friend is what does not exist in our minds.

[The Unnamable]

Upon Nothing

Nothing, thou elder brother even to shade,
That hadst a being ere the world was made,
And (well fixed) art alone of ending not afraid.

Ere time and place were, time and place were not,
When primitive Nothing Something straight begot,
Then all proceeded from the great united--What?

Something, the general attribute of all,
Severed from thee, its sole original,
Into thy boundless self must undistinguished fall.

Yet Something did thy mighty power command,
And from thy fruitful emptiness's hand,
Snatched men, beasts, birds, fire, air, and land.

Matter, the wickedest offspring of thy race,
By Form assisted, flew from thy embrace,
And rebel Light obscured thy reverend dusky face.

With Form and Matter, Time and Place did join,
Body, thy foe, with these did leagues combine
To spoil thy peaceful realm, and ruin all thy line.

But turncoat Time assists the foe in vain,
And, bribed by thee, assists thy short-lived reign,
And to thy hungry womb drives back thy slaves again.

Though mysteries are barred from laic eyes,
And the Divine alone with warrant pries
Into thy bosom, where thy truth in private lies,

Yet this of thee the wise may freely say,
Thou from the virtuous nothing takest away,
And to be part of thee the wicked wisely pray.

Great Negative, how vainly would the wise
Inquire, define, distinguish, teach, devise?
Didst thou not stand to point their dull philosophies.

Is, or is not, the two great ends of Fate,
And true or false, the subject of debate,
That perfects, or destroys, the vast designs of Fate,

When they have racked the politician's breast,
Within thy bosom most securely rest,
And, when reduced to thee, are least unsafe and best.

But Nothing, why does Something still permit
That sacred monarchs should at council sit
With persons highly thought at best for nothing fit?

While weighty Something modestly abstains
From princes' coffers, and from statesmen's brains,
And Nothing there like stately Nothing reigns,

Nothing, who dwellest with fools in grave disguise,
For whom they reverend shapes and forms devise,
Lawn sleeves, and furs, and gowns, when they like thee look wise.

French truth, Dutch prowess, British policy,
Hibernian learning, Scotch civility,
Spaniard's dispatch, Dane's wit are mainly seen in thee.

The great man's gratitude to his best friend,
King's promises, whore's vows, towards thee they bend,
Flow swiftly to thee, and in thee never end.

John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester

[beer good]

Or, putting it more concisely:

I Shall Be Free No. 10 (excerpt)

Now you're probably wondering by now
Just what this song is all about
What's prob'ly got you baffled more
Is what this thing here is for ---
It's nothing!
It's something I learned over in England!

- Bob Dylan

[The Unnamable]

Or, putting it more concisely:

I Shall Be Free No. 10 (excerpt)

Now you're probably wondering by now
Just what this song is all about
What's prob'ly got you baffled more
Is what this thing here is for ---
It's nothing!
It's something I learned over in England!

- Bob Dylan
Or perhaps, "When y' ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose" (the way he sings it)? Mind you, Dylan doesn't have a pun like the one in the sixth line by Wilmot.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Great poem Unnamable. I wonder if you've seen Johnny Depp's portrayal of Rochester in "Libertine"? He seemed like your kind of guy.

[simon]

And interesting side note perhaps is that Aristotle said something exists first, then you think about it, then you talk about it, then you write it. But The Egyptians thought the opposite: first something is written, then you say it, then it comes into existence. It seems in the West at least we have taken from the Greeks.

[Nymo]

And interesting side note perhaps is that Aristotle said something exists first, then you think about it, then you talk about it, then you write it. But The Egyptians thought the opposite: first something is written, then you say it, then it comes into existence. It seems in the West at least we have taken from the Greeks.

If I open my mouth: Well, I suppose I would be mistaken to be like any other only wanting to be heard. Surely if I have something wise to say--it may very well be lost in the many words that have been spoken twice and have been repeated. Less anyone understands that words that are written—are spoken--when read are spoken again. Perhaps it would be wiser not to ponder my opinions-- so they do not exist. Less they exist twice.

“So I left him, saying to myself, as I went away: Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is,-- for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows; I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him. Then I went to another who had still higher pretensions to wisdom, and my conclusion was exactly the same. Whereupon I made another enemy of him, and of many others besides him.”—From the Apology of Plato, page 2, last paragraph, last explanation for his reasoning with others.

Yet I feel necessity is laid upon me because it seems many only believe in what they feel does exist: It appears and seems apparent many believe that debating has the virtue of knowledge; therefore I can not explain what they believe does not exist: I can not convey wisdom in their realm of thinking--it is up to God to do so,-- for they think themselves wise by their words. I neither know nor think that I know; yet I realize I am the lest among them is what I should ponder and take my leave; less I get mistaken for being wise, which I am not. Realizing anything that I have written perhaps now is also spoken twice, and I suppose will be spoken many times until it becomes lost in the many repeated words that others find of little value. Obviously not realizing that, that which is non-existence lies beyond our understanding is what created everything. Not out of the minds of man. Less he thinks he is God. But I say he is not. Because he can not explain understanding, he can only try and explain what he believes it to be. That understanding fills all the books that have ever been written by him, the oldest one the closest to his understanding. Yet no matter how many times it has be rewritten and changed many still feel it holds wisdom he does not process. Many waste their lives debating whether it is not so. And I say it is a wasted life because it creates much thought, and in much thought there is little understanding to what is staring in our faces every moment that is part of our existence.

[elpidi26]

I wonder if my thoughts are mine at all. That is, how are we inclined to believe that our consciousness is our own and not originating in some abtract thing or corporeal identity elsewhere? What if my thoughts are the thoughts of another somehow "downloaded" and controlled elsewhere? What if I am being tricked that I am me? Indeed the question becomes meaningless and distorted with "my" liberal use of the first person in writing all of this. If "my" thoughts are not "my" own, can "I" claim real individuality?

[Honey_Ryder62]

Emptiness is an absence of inherent existence. Nothing exists 'from its own side'.

[jackyyyy]

Now that you mention it..... it exists.

I'd like to see a Greek argue non-existence with a Chinese.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

I'd like to see a Greek argue non-existence with a Chinese.

...in Dutch!

[elpidi26]

Now that you mention it..... it exists.

I'd like to see a Greek argue non-existence with a Chinese.


...in Dutch!

...in box with a fox...

[elpidi26]

...in a tram with green ham...

[IrishCanadian]

HAHAHAHA this is one of the threads I have missed so much ... and now it is even better. But back to topic. Well I don't really have anything to say. I flogged this topic dea about three pages ago. Cheers.

[NikolaiI]

I do. :)

[nathin]

To exist is simply to believe you exist. If you believe it, it is so. I think therefore I am