On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 11:36 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
>>> propose that a thing exists if it is a grouping or relationship present >>> defining what is contained within. >>> >> >> >> If nothing is contained within then that is very well defined, >> therefore nothing exists. Something obviously also exists, but if both >> something and nothing exist then there is no contrast and the word "exists" >> is drained of all usefulness. >> > > > What I was trying to get at is that the most fundamental unit of > existence and the most fundamental instantiation of the word exists is the > existent entity that is, I think, incorrectly called the "absolute > lack-of-all". > Existent entity? But something that has the existent property is something that exists, and round and round we go. Once again the word "exists" is drained of all usefulness. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
