• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Nothing exists.

Paralogic said:
Unicorns don't exist, therefore your statement is false. Nice try, though.
Click to expand...

If they don't exist, then what "unicorn" refers to is "nothing", and therefore "nothing" does not exist.

QED.
 
Radical said:
If they don't exist, then what "unicorn" refers to is "nothing", and therefore "nothing" does not exist.

QED.
Click to expand...

??? That statement would fail any Logic course in any undergraduate institution in this country.
 
Paralogic said:
If you can't express what you claim yourself, any links you use are irrelevant.
Click to expand...

If you didn't understand me, there's the link to the guy I get it from. If you don't care, then don't care. Not my problem. But you can't say I'm wrong simply because you don't understand. Perhaps you need to take a few philosophy courses. Linguistics is what you need for this specific problem.

Lets see if I can make Quine elementary. We have a sentence "I like dogs". These terms in the sentence, "I", "like", and "dogs" all refer to something. "I" refers to an object (me, of course), "like" refers toward the disposition I have toward some other object(s), and "dogs" refers to the little furry things, which "I" "like".

(Switching to Russell now) But lets say "The king of France is bald". We have a problem. France doesn't have a king. So what does "king" refer to? It refers to, literally, no thing. The sentence is nonsense. We can't actually say the sentence is false because it literally makes no sense. So instead, we can say "the king of france exists and is bald", which is false.

So back to the original. If you say that "unicorns do not exist", and you mean that "unicorn" refers to no existent thing, then transitively you mean "no existent thing does not exist", which is my claim. If you mean that unicorn does refer to some existing thing, and you mean that "unicorns do not exist", then transitively you mean "Some existing thing does not exist", which is a contradiction.
 
none of us are materialist if nothing exists

you smart athes :mrgreen:
 
Radical said:
If you didn't understand me, there's the link to the guy I get it from. If you don't care, then don't care. Not my problem. But you can't say I'm wrong simply because you don't understand. Perhaps you need to take a few philosophy courses. Linguistics is what you need for this specific problem.

Lets see if I can make Quine elementary. We have a sentence "I like dogs". These terms in the sentence, "I", "like", and "dogs" all refer to something. "I" refers to an object (me, of course), "like" refers toward the disposition I have toward some other object(s), and "dogs" refers to the little furry things, which "I" "like".

(Switching to Russell now) But lets say "The king of France is bald". We have a problem. France doesn't have a king. So what does "king" refer to? It refers to, literally, no thing. The sentence is nonsense. We can't actually say the sentence is false because it literally makes no sense. So instead, we can say "the king of france exists and is bald", which is false.

So back to the original. If you say that "unicorns do not exist", and you mean that "unicorn" refers to no existent thing, then transitively you mean "no existent thing does not exist", which is my claim. If you mean that unicorn does refer to some existing thing, and you mean that "unicorns do not exist", then transitively you mean "Some existing thing does not exist", which is a contradiction.
Click to expand...

Would it please the court to say that "unicorns do not exist in reality"? Perhaps, "unicorns exist only in our imagination"?
 
Critter7r said:
Would it please the court to say that "unicorns do not exist in reality"? Perhaps, "unicorns exist only in our imagination"?
Click to expand...

Yes, actually that works just fine. People have the idea "unicorn", so we can say "The idea of "unicorn" exists". That's perfectly accurate. That's actually the only reason I can use this example. When I say "unicorn" it makes everyone think the same thing, and when I relate it to reality, everyone thinks "the thing of which you speak does not exist".
 
Radical said:
Yes, actually that works just fine. People have the idea "unicorn", so we can say "The idea of "unicorn" exists". That's perfectly accurate. That's actually the only reason I can use this example. When I say "unicorn" it makes everyone think the same thing, and when I relate it to reality, everyone thinks "the thing of which you speak does not exist".
Click to expand...
I'm imagining a duocorn right now.
 
My vacuum cleaner exists.
 
iangb said:
Vacuum exists.

EDIT: Darkness exists. Cold exists.

Or does it?

Does 'absence' exist?

EDIT2:


MULTICORN.
Click to expand...
Unicornucopia : The Unicorn as Collected Object
Pontbriand, Deirdre
Date: 2008
Abstract:
Faith in the unicorn arose around 400 B.C.E. and the legend of the white horse-like creature grew to fantastical proportions, incorporating medicinal superstition and Jesus Christ. Belief in the unicorn was reinforced by an enigmatic horn that appeared in Europe around the twelfth century. This long, spiraled horn was sought out as a rare commodity by the wealthy and powerful, becoming a ubiquitous presence in the collections of early modern Europe. The closing stages of the Age of Exploration led Europeans to discover a curiously tusked whale in the Arctic Ocean; the distinctive tusk of the narwhal had corroborated the complex myth of the unicorn. By the time it was deemed to be imaginary, the legend of the unicorn had been perpetuated across the realms of literature, religion, medicine, and the fine and decorative arts.
The image of the unicorn brought forth centuries ago is still recognizable today. The modern unicorn is isolated within the realms of the fantastical or the kitsch, a paradigm for parody. Despite this change in circumstances, unicorns continue to capture the fancy of collectors. This thesis is an exploration of the unicorn as a collectible object. The objective is twofold: to explore how the unicorn as a single object has figured into western culture across time and space, and to look at what the unicorn as a collected object illuminates about the act of collecting today. By examining collectors within the frameworks of early modern Europe and postmodern society, it can be ascertained how the unicorn as a collectible object has been transformed over time.
Description:

unicornocopia
 
hado117 said:
Unicornucopia : The Unicorn as Collected Object
Pontbriand, Deirdre
Date: 2008
Abstract:
Faith in the unicorn arose around 400 B.C.E. and the legend of the white horse-like creature grew to fantastical proportions, incorporating medicinal superstition and Jesus Christ. Belief in the unicorn was reinforced by an enigmatic horn that appeared in Europe around the twelfth century. This long, spiraled horn was sought out as a rare commodity by the wealthy and powerful, becoming a ubiquitous presence in the collections of early modern Europe. The closing stages of the Age of Exploration led Europeans to discover a curiously tusked whale in the Arctic Ocean; the distinctive tusk of the narwhal had corroborated the complex myth of the unicorn. By the time it was deemed to be imaginary, the legend of the unicorn had been perpetuated across the realms of literature, religion, medicine, and the fine and decorative arts.
The image of the unicorn brought forth centuries ago is still recognizable today. The modern unicorn is isolated within the realms of the fantastical or the kitsch, a paradigm for parody. Despite this change in circumstances, unicorns continue to capture the fancy of collectors. This thesis is an exploration of the unicorn as a collectible object. The objective is twofold: to explore how the unicorn as a single object has figured into western culture across time and space, and to look at what the unicorn as a collected object illuminates about the act of collecting today. By examining collectors within the frameworks of early modern Europe and postmodern society, it can be ascertained how the unicorn as a collectible object has been transformed over time.
Description:

unicornocopia
Click to expand...

the king james version of the bible mentions unicorns, but at that time one horned rinos were called unicorns.
 
hado117 said:
the king james version of the bible mentions unicorns, but at that time one horned rinos were called unicorns.
Click to expand...

f you get an old 1828 Noah Webster’s Dictionary, which is the very first edition dictionary that Webster came out with about 200 years ago, and look up the word “unicorn” it says:

Unicorn – An animal with one horn; the monoceros. this name is often applied to the rhinoceros.

(This 1828 dictionary can be accessed free online. Just go to Google.com and type in “Noah Webster 1828” and it will be one of the first links that pop up.)

Notice how this 200-year-old definition of the word “unicorn” says absolutely nothing about a horse. It says nothing about a horse-like animal, or a mythical animal, or a fictitious creature. It says absolutely nothing about mythology whatsoever. But rather, it says that this is a name that is often applied to the rhinoceros.

Now, anyone who has ever seen a rhinoceros knows that a rhino has two horns — a larger one up front, and a smaller one behind. So, how could a rhinoceros be considered a unicorn?

Well, if you look up the word “rhinoceros” in the same dictionary it says:

Rhinoceros – A genus of quadrupeds of two species, one of which, the unicorn, has a single horn growing almost erect from the nose. This animal when full grown, is said to be 12 feet in length. There is another species with two horns, the bicornis. They are natives of Asia and Africa.

According to Noah Webster, back in the early 1800’s it was understood that there were two species of the rhinoceros. The one-horned species was called “unicorn,” and the two-horned species was called “bicornis.”

Today it is understood that there are five species of the rhinoceros, three of which have two horns, and two of which have one horn.
 
Before I jump into the fray with some smart ass comment, I want a term defined.

What do you mean by 'Nothing'? Can you describe what this 'nothing' is? What properties does it have?? Or, is thing oging to be one set of logical fallacies based on how language changes for a term (known as equivocation).

Also, is "Nothing" sacred?
 
fmw said:
Didn't you imply that there is no reality?
Click to expand...

Never! Even after a lecture I watched recently by a leading neuroscientist that showed how even a red apple we see is not a red apple at all, I never claimed there is no reality.

I claimed that nothing is part of reality and that it exists too... among many other things.
 
RAMOSS said:
What do you mean by 'Nothing'?
Click to expand...

The term is undefinable. It was just a play with language, which is insufficient in describing reality.

Also, is "Nothing" sacred?
Click to expand...

'Sacred' is a religious term and therefore meaningless and irrelevant to reality by definition.

Best comment to-date! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom