Philosophy Now Forum

Nothing exists (re Gorgias the sophist)?

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 2:45 am Nothing exists (re Gorgias the sophist)?

This has to be deliberated within the appropriate context.

In the common and conventional sense, things do exist as real to facilitate one's survival and well being.
Within common sense, even things merely conceived, illusory, and imagined are taken as 'real things' as acted upon. A piece of rope in the dark shade taken as a 'real' snake has a probability of effective survival value.

The problem is when things which are empirically verified, conceived, illusory and imagined are taken as absolutely real and independent of mind, leading to the insistence that the illusory soul & God really exist as real. Such a real God had sent commands to kill non-believers and sanctioned believers to commit all sorts of evil acts upon non-believers. For believers who obey God's command, their soul will survive physical death with eternal life in heaven.

The belief that there are things [common and conventional sense] is'

• Essentialism: An essence characterizes a substance or a form, in the sense of the forms and ideas in Platonic idealism. It is permanent, unalterable, and eternal, and is present in every possible world.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism

So,
Essentialism insist things [mind-independent, permanent, unalterable, and eternal] exist leading to the extreme of God & Soul existing as real.
God as a real thing contribute the terrible evils within humanity.
To resolve evils from a God, we must refute God exist as a real thing.
From non-essentialism no essentialist things exist [nothing exists].
Since God is an essentialist thing, God does not exist.
Thus God is refuted, so, no grounds for evil from a non-existent God.

That 'nothing exists' is effective in the above context, i.e. to refute essentialism and God & Soul.

For Buddhism [& other Eastern religions], nothing exists as real [Maya].
If things exist as real, then there is the tendency for individuals to cling and then attached to things which generate the endless cycle of desires and attachment generating endless disappointments and sufferings.
As such, the maxim 'nothing exists' is therapeutic to one's well being but one must recognize the context with that maxim and not to take it literally.

In the practical perspective, things do exist as real which are essential for basic survival and well-being.

This is the Two-Truths Doctrine of Buddhism;

• The Buddhist doctrine of the two truths (Sanskrit: dvasatya, Wylie: bden pa gnyis) differentiates between two levels of satya (Sanskrit; Pali: sacca; word meaning "truth" or "reality") in the teaching of the Śākyamuni Buddha:
  1. the "conventional" or "provisional" (saṁvṛti) truth, and
  2. the "ultimate" (paramārtha) truth.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine

Thus, it is always critical to ensure one is not stuck and be dogmatic & ideological with merely one perspective of reality.
Note the threads I raised in the Ethical Theory sections, re Two Senses of Fact, Objectivity, Oughts, where the contexts to be used appropriate is critical.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 8:34 am

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 2:45 am Nothing exists (re Gorgias the sophist)?

This has to be deliberated within the appropriate context.

In the common and conventional sense, things do exist as real to facilitate one's survival and well being.
Within common sense, even things merely conceived, illusory, and imagined are taken as 'real things' as acted upon. A piece of rope in the dark shade taken as a 'real' snake has a probability of effective survival value.

The problem is when things which are empirically verified, conceived, illusory and imagined are taken as absolutely real and independent of mind, leading to the insistence that the illusory soul & God really exist as real. Such a real God had sent commands to kill non-believers and sanctioned believers to commit all sorts of evil acts upon non-believers. For believers who obey God's command, their soul will survive physical death with eternal life in heaven.

The belief that there are things [common and conventional sense] is'

• Essentialism: An essence characterizes a substance or a form, in the sense of the forms and ideas in Platonic idealism. It is permanent, unalterable, and eternal, and is present in every possible world.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism

So,
Essentialism insist things [mind-independent, permanent, unalterable, and eternal] exist leading to the extreme of God & Soul existing as real.
God as a real thing contribute the terrible evils within humanity.
To resolve evils from a God, we must refute God exist as a real thing.
From non-essentialism no essentialist things exist [nothing exists].
Since God is an essentialist thing, God does not exist.
Thus God is refuted, so, no grounds for evil from a non-existent God.

That 'nothing exists' is effective in the above context, i.e. to refute essentialism and God & Soul.

For Buddhism [& other Eastern religions], nothing exists as real [Maya].
If things exist as real, then there is the tendency for individuals to cling and then attached to things which generate the endless cycle of desires and attachment generating endless disappointments and sufferings.
As such, the maxim 'nothing exists' is therapeutic to one's well being but one must recognize the context with that maxim and not to take it literally.

In the practical perspective, things do exist as real which are essential for basic survival and well-being.

This is the Two-Truths Doctrine of Buddhism;

• The Buddhist doctrine of the two truths (Sanskrit: dvasatya, Wylie: bden pa gnyis) differentiates between two levels of satya (Sanskrit; Pali: sacca; word meaning "truth" or "reality") in the teaching of the Śākyamuni Buddha:
  1. the "conventional" or "provisional" (saṁvṛti) truth, and
  2. the "ultimate" (paramārtha) truth.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine

Thus, it is always critical to ensure one is not stuck and be dogmatic & ideological with merely one perspective of reality.
Note the threads I raised in the Ethical Theory sections, re Two Senses of Fact, Objectivity, Oughts, where the contexts to be used appropriate is critical.

First off, muchas gracias for a well-thought-out post. My own point of view, likely flawed, is quid sit?

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 8:41 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 8:34 am

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 2:45 am Nothing exists (re Gorgias the sophist)?

............

This is the Two-Truths Doctrine of Buddhism;

• The Buddhist doctrine of the two truths (Sanskrit: dvasatya, Wylie: bden pa gnyis) differentiates between two levels of satya (Sanskrit; Pali: sacca; word meaning "truth" or "reality") in the teaching of the Śākyamuni Buddha:
  1. the "conventional" or "provisional" (saṁvṛti) truth, and
  2. the "ultimate" (paramārtha) truth.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine

Thus, it is always critical to ensure one is not stuck and be dogmatic & ideological with merely one perspective of reality.
Note the threads I raised in the Ethical Theory sections, re Two Senses of Fact, Objectivity, Oughts, where the contexts to be used appropriate is critical.

First off, muchas gracias for a well-thought-out post. My own point of view, likely flawed, is quid sit?

Note;

There is a possibility that Geogias was influenced by Buddhism, since there were a lot of communication between the Greeks and Hindus during those times.

After the Greco-Bactrians militarily occupied parts of northern India from around 180 BCE, numerous instances of interaction between Greeks and Buddhism are recorded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Greek_religions

Thomas McEvilley on Ancient Greek and Indian philosophy
I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXBygl-ox5Q
Thomas McEvilley speaks about Ancient Greek and Indian philosophy, and their co-mingling in his book: 'The Shape of Ancient Thought'.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 8:59 am There is a possibility that Geogias was influenced by Buddhism, since there were a lot of communication between the Greeks and Hindus during those times.

And the Hindus were known to gossip about other religions, especially Buddhism.

Agent Smith wrote:

Is it true that ...
Nothing exists (re Gorgias the sophist)?

Can you give an application of this idea that nothing exists?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 8:59 am

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 8:41 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 8:34 am
............

This is the Two-Truths Doctrine of Buddhism;

• The Buddhist doctrine of the two truths (Sanskrit: dvasatya, Wylie: bden pa gnyis) differentiates between two levels of satya (Sanskrit; Pali: sacca; word meaning "truth" or "reality") in the teaching of the Śākyamuni Buddha:
  1. the "conventional" or "provisional" (saṁvṛti) truth, and
  2. the "ultimate" (paramārtha) truth.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine

Thus, it is always critical to ensure one is not stuck and be dogmatic & ideological with merely one perspective of reality.
Note the threads I raised in the Ethical Theory sections, re Two Senses of Fact, Objectivity, Oughts, where the contexts to be used appropriate is critical.

First off, muchas gracias for a well-thought-out post. My own point of view, likely flawed, is quid sit?

Note;

There is a possibility that Geogias was influenced by Buddhism, since there were a lot of communication between the Greeks and Hindus during those times.

After the Greco-Bactrians militarily occupied parts of northern India from around 180 BCE, numerous instances of interaction between Greeks and Buddhism are recorded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Greek_religions

Thomas McEvilley on Ancient Greek and Indian philosophy
I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXBygl-ox5Q
Thomas McEvilley speaks about Ancient Greek and Indian philosophy, and their co-mingling in his book: 'The Shape of Ancient Thought'.

There's a (very good) reason why whales are not fish.

It would be interesting to try a combo of Gorgiasian nihilism (?) and other philosophical ideas that have been floated by our ever-creative philosophers.

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 5:51 am It would be interesting to try a combo of Gorgian nihilism (?) and other philosophical ideas that have been floated by our ever-creative philosophers.

Do it then man? You wanna ride horses, at some point ya gotta get on the horse.
Here, if it throws you, the ground is all mattresses.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 6:55 am

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 5:51 am It would be interesting to try a combo of Gorgian nihilism (?) and other philosophical ideas that have been floated by our ever-creative philosophers.

Do it then man? You wanna ride horses, at some point ya gotta get on the horse.
Here, if it throws you, the ground is all mattresses.

Good suggestion. I'll think about it!

Gorgias is not expressing a mere opinion. It is demonstrable in metaphysics that nothing really exists. Nagarjuna demonstrates this in the second century in his Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way, and Kant does so in the Critique.

They do not prove that nothing exists. They prove that nothing really exists. This allows Heraclitus to say 'We are and are-not'. That is, we are, but not really. If you want to make sense of this idea I'd recommend a study of the Nagarjuna's doctrine of Two Truths and theory of emptiness.

PeteJ wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 7:26 pm Gorgias is not expressing a mere opinion. It is demonstrable in metaphysics that nothing really exists. Nagarjuna demonstrates this in the second century in his Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way, and Kant does so in the Critique.

They do not prove that nothing exists. They prove that nothing really exists. This allows Heraclitus to say 'We are and are-not'. That is, we are, but not really. If you want to make sense of this idea I'd recommend a study of the Nagarjuna's doctrine of Two Truths and theory of emptiness.

Good points.
I am very familiar with all the above philosophers.

What is critical is to apply the above in the proper contexts to optimize one's well-being within whatever the existing constraints.
Note my points above.
viewtopic.php?p=628564#p628564

According to Kant's Copernican Revolution there is 'nothing' i.e. no things-in-themselves [noumena] if taken in the metaphysical sense, i.e. existing absolutely independent of the human conditions. Nevertheless, the reified nothing is still a useful illusion.
However, for Kant things [phenomena] do really exists in the empirical + rational + critical sense [empirical realism].

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 2:45 am Nothing exists (re Gorgias the sophist)?

One point I noted re Kant [mentioned] is;

Kant argued 'existence' or exists is not a predicate.
Realistically, the general format is 'Subject<->Predicate'

"Exists" is merely "is" which is a copula that joint [complement] the subject with its predicates.

If 'nothing exists' i.e. "nothing [subject] - exists [is] - ??? [predicate] " where is the predicate?
This is why the context [as predicate] is critical for the statement to make sense.

A predicate is always conditioned upon a specific Framework and System of Reality [FSR] or FSK [ F & S of Knowledge]. e.g.

Water [subject] exists as H20 [predicated on the Science-Chemistry FSR]
An apple exists as a fruit [predicated on the Science-Biology FSR or FSK.

The FSR and FSK are ultimately predicated unavoidably upon the human conditions.

This is why the claim,

"God exists" is not realistic because there is no predicate.
When the predicate for God is taken into account, it is impossible for God to be real.

God is Impossible to be Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

PeteJ wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 7:26 pm Gorgias is not expressing a mere opinion. It is demonstrable in metaphysics that nothing really exists. Nagarjuna demonstrates this in the second century in his Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way, and Kant does so in the Critique.

They do not prove that nothing exists. They prove that nothing really exists. This allows Heraclitus to say 'We are and are-not'. That is, we are, but not really. If you want to make sense of this idea I'd recommend a study of the Nagarjuna's doctrine of Two Truths and theory of emptiness.

Danke for the input. Didn't know about the Hindu connection. Also, had no idea about the Heraclitean angle.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:42 am

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 2:45 am Nothing exists (re Gorgias the sophist)?

One point I noted re Kant [mentioned] is;

Kant argued 'existence' or exists is not a predicate.
Realistically, the general format is 'Subject<->Predicate'

"Exists" is merely "is" which is a copula that joint [complement] the subject with its predicates.

If 'nothing exists' i.e. "nothing [subject] - exists [is] - ??? [predicate] " where is the predicate?
This is why the context [as predicate] is critical for the statement to make sense.

A predicate is always conditioned upon a specific Framework and System of Reality [FSR] or FSK [ F & S of Knowledge]. e.g.

Water [subject] exists as H20 [predicated on the Science-Chemistry FSR]
An apple exists as a fruit [predicated on the Science-Biology FSR or FSK.

The FSR and FSK are ultimately predicated unavoidably upon the human conditions.

This is why the claim,

"God exists" is not realistic because there is no predicate.
When the predicate for God is taken into account, it is impossible for God to be real.

God is Impossible to be Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

I find Seeds' objection to your premise in that other thread, linked above, a thought provoking one.

Whether or not there is a God, hinges on our definition of what God is? So far, some of the more convincing proofs I've seen of the existence of God have been along the lines of our belief that the universe had to have a beginning or an intelligent creator, that the idea of complexity and consciousness "accidentally" sprouting up out of inanimate space dust and atomic particles, seems incredibly counterintuitive to us.

I suppose it's possible that such is the case for whatever humanly inexplicable reason, however, something about the idea of consciousness just sprouting up out of nothing just doesn't sit well. Beyond that we have only speculation and conjecture: for example, "God is benevolent" or "omniscient" or an "angry and jealous God" resembling a deified Archie Bunker in the sky.

I'd say God serves at least 3 fundamental purposes to the human mind:

1. Origin of causality: It explains the origins of everything. Of course it also may beg the question of where did God come from.

2. Supreme Justice: It reconciles human experience giving us a sense that there is supreme justice in the world, making it conducive to the forming of more complex social interaction among humans. If a person thinks God is watching their behavior, then you don't have to watch your back as vigorously and can trust others with a little more confidence. The idea of "heaven" and "hell" awaiting after life, preserves a kind of economy of punishment and reward that extends beyond what happens in this world--should events in this world seem unjust or unfair.

3. Faith and Good will: It gives us a hope that things will be OK in the end, regardless of what we face in life. Your parents die leaving you homeless, then you can persevere better with the belief that God will help you along the way to make up for that horrible loss.

Of course, it could be that the world is a crap shoot and we humans have been fortunately tempered by our superstitions that have allowed us to create more sophisticated societies than gorillas or monkeys.

To me, all this brings up a vital question as to whether it may be better to delude ourselves with a fantasy that helps us function better in the world or else embrace a truth that maybe would lead to a collapse of human civilization as we know it.

OR maybe there's a God. My thought is that if there is, then that God must be found somewhere in the pages of all the various religions and such of the world and not only in a particular religion's texts. I just can't see God picking sides, like he's someone's personal bodyguard against everyone one else or something. I don't know.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:42 am

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 2:45 am Nothing exists (re Gorgias the sophist)?

One point I noted re Kant [mentioned] is;

Kant argued 'existence' or exists is not a predicate.
Realistically, the general format is 'Subject<->Predicate'

"Exists" is merely "is" which is a copula that joint [complement] the subject with its predicates.

If 'nothing exists' i.e. "nothing [subject] - exists [is] - ??? [predicate] " where is the predicate?
This is why the context [as predicate] is critical for the statement to make sense.

A predicate is always conditioned upon a specific Framework and System of Reality [FSR] or FSK [ F & S of Knowledge]. e.g.

Water [subject] exists as H20 [predicated on the Science-Chemistry FSR]
An apple exists as a fruit [predicated on the Science-Biology FSR or FSK.

The FSR and FSK are ultimately predicated unavoidably upon the human conditions.

This is why the claim,

"God exists" is not realistic because there is no predicate.
When the predicate for God is taken into account, it is impossible for God to be real.

God is Impossible to be Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

That's a good observation. I'm forced to disagree with Kant nevertheless. Descartes, Descartes, Descartes. It's getting sillier and sillier.