Nothingness is a void. It is non being. A non entity. Nonexistent objects, on the other hand, have being. They are. An unicorn is a non existent object. So it has being. It is an entity. It has properties. Nothingness doesn't. It is not even an object. It negates the possibility of objects themselves.
Precisely because it is a fundamental concept, 'existence' it is not explicable by any other terms. Notice, that he can only refer to non-existence in terms of existence: things, objects... No, we do not talk about things that do not exist, we actually only talk about terms that do not refer to anything beyond a concept. Thus, Santa Claus, for example, is not the name of a person, it is instead a term that merely refers to a concept. The key word here is 'merely'. Again, unicorn, refers merely to a concept. By contrast, Tim Crane, refers to both a concept ( of a person named Tim Crane) and an actual person. Horse refers to both a concept (of a horse) and an actual animal. It might be objected that a concept must be a concept of something, thus if Santa Claus is a concept, then it must be a concept of something (beyond the concept) referred to by the term. But this is just the mistake: supposing that concepts must be of something or of nothing, then to conclude that a concept of nothing is not actually a concept. What should be noticed, however, is that the premise on which this reasoning is based is ABSURD ! For it asserts that a concept must be of something or not actually a concept. A concept that is not actually a concept, is that even a real possibility ? If not, then, the premise asserts something that is ABSURD ! In essence the premise is that x is x or x is not-x. But, it is obvious that x cannot be not-x, therefore, the premise is absurd. In other words, this so-called 'reasoning' is nothing more than the dogmatic assertion of the conclusion by means of first stating the conclusion in absurd form as if it were a premise distinct from the conclusion itself, and from which the conclusion has been validly derived. When, in fact, the so-called 'premise' is simply the conclusion itself stated in an absurd form.
"You're absolutely right. Nothingness is different from non-existent objects and I just blurred the whole thing." Why?
Nothingness is a void. It is non being. A non entity. Nonexistent objects, on the other hand, have being. They are. An unicorn is a non existent object. So it has being. It is an entity. It has properties. Nothingness doesn't. It is not even an object. It negates the possibility of objects themselves.
Precisely because it is a fundamental concept, 'existence' it is not explicable by any other terms. Notice, that he can only refer to non-existence in terms of existence: things, objects...
No, we do not talk about things that do not exist, we actually only talk about terms that do not refer to anything beyond a concept. Thus, Santa Claus, for example, is not the name of a person, it is instead a term that merely refers to a concept. The key word here is 'merely'. Again, unicorn, refers merely to a concept. By contrast, Tim Crane, refers to both a concept ( of a person named Tim Crane) and an actual person. Horse refers to both a concept (of a horse) and an actual animal.
It might be objected that a concept must be a concept of something, thus if Santa Claus is a concept, then it must be a concept of something (beyond the concept) referred to by the term. But this is just the mistake: supposing that concepts must be of something or of nothing, then to conclude that a concept of nothing is not actually a concept. What should be noticed, however, is that the premise on which this reasoning is based is ABSURD ! For it asserts that a concept must be of something or not actually a concept. A concept that is not actually a concept, is that even a real possibility ? If not, then, the premise asserts something that is ABSURD ! In essence the premise is that x is x or x is not-x. But, it is obvious that x cannot be not-x, therefore, the premise is absurd. In other words, this so-called 'reasoning' is nothing more than the dogmatic assertion of the conclusion by means of first stating the conclusion in absurd form as if it were a premise distinct from the conclusion itself, and from which the conclusion has been validly derived. When, in fact, the so-called 'premise' is simply the conclusion itself stated in an absurd form.
This is pretty thin gruel, and warmed over, at that.
The number 1 is not prime.