Has anyone ever managed to BTFO Gorgias' "On Non Existence" or are we just going to accept that nothing exists?

Has anyone ever managed to BTFO Gorgias' "On Non Existence" or are we just going to accept that nothing exists?

Attached: 175px-Pyrohumiliation.png (175x322, 75K)

What's his argument?

never thought I'd see a defeated red pyro on Yea Forums

Truth exists necessarily. But Truth cannot exist on its own, or it would not know what itself is. Truth is therefore actualized when something exists. But Truth is most real when it is perceived and directly glorified.

Attached: EB2B4E91-04E2-4B17-AB7E-80B4064C789B.jpg (500x750, 68K)

What is, is. What is not, is not.

Didn't you study the Greeks?

Gibberish

Obscuarantist

I guess I need to break it down:
>Truth exists necessarily
It is impossible for Truth to not exist. For, if it did not exist, then it would be true that Truth that does not exist. In other words, there is always some truth claim to be made, and therefore, Truth always exists. Another way of thinking about it is that there will always be an “is” even when you try to remove all things from existence, since this non-existence suddenly is.
>But Truth cannot exist on its own, or it would not know what itself is
Supposing now that Truth arises from non-existence, it could not simply remain all alone, since it’s first truth claim would be “Nothing exists except for this truth that nothing exists.” But this is really the same as saying “truth exists and only truth exists.” This raises the question, “What is truth?” to which there is no good answer at the moment. This Truth, in its infancy, is empty, undeveloped. It must somehow find a way to describe itself as a whole.
>Truth is therefore actualized when something exists.
When there exists more content for Truth to describe, it becomes more real. Now Truth is the sum of all truth statements that don’t include the truth statement about itself.
>But Truth is most real when it is perceived and directly glorified.
This is the final end of Truth: to know itself as Truth. To finally be able to say “I exist” and know what the “I” is referring to. This action requires going beyond itself and reflecting back into itself. Creation is a mirror that allows Truth to see itself for what it really is, through the eyes of the creation. This is the whole meaning of all existence: for Truth to be wholly developed, and to fully understand itself. There can be nothing more meaningful than that.

>Another way of thinking about it is that there will always be an “is” even when you try to remove all things from existence, since this non-existence suddenly is
Why? And this wasn't about truth, it was about existence

There is no such thing as total non-existence, since non-existence would have to exist.

If Truth is contemplated by Creation, then that must mean that Creation is somehow separate from Truth, which implies that Creation must be not-Truth, bringing up the consequence of having Truth describe only that which is not created, and Creation being that which is not Truth, by which it may be understood that no Truth is in Creation, and there is nothing true to be said about Creation.

Now you could ask why we are able to use logic to determine what’s possible and what’s not possible, why something exists and why nothing does not. For how do we know that what is seemingly contradictory cannot actually be? Why should logic exist? Well, if the law of contradiction does not exist, then the LNC allows for itself to both exist and not exist. But it can only exist when there are no contradictions. Perhaps there are two realities, both contradicting the other, and we are simply living in the reality in which the LNC is true.

All creation has its substance in Truth, was made through Truth, but yet, it is not equal to Truth. All things are, so they partake in the Truth, but Truth itself is a separate being, a sum or product of all creation-truths. It must be said that without the creation, there is no Truth, and that, there was never a “time” when there was no creation. But Truth includes time, is beyond time, so it is already complete.

Working on it.
What's his argument?

Copying this from a website

Gorgias begins his argument by presenting a logical contradiction, "if the nonexistent exists, it will both exist and not exist at the same time" (B3.67) (a violation of the principle of non-contradiction). He then denies that existence (to on) itself exists, for if it exists, it is either eternal or generated. If it is eternal, it has no beginning, and is therefore without limit. If it is without limit, it is "nowhere" (B3.69), and hence does not exist. And if existence is generated, it must come from something, and that something is existence, which is another contradiction. Likewise, nonexistence (to mê on) cannot produce anything (B3.71). The sophist then explains that existence can neither be "one" (hen) or "many" (polla), since if it were one, it would be divisible, and therefore not one. If it were many, it would be a "composite of separate entities" (B3.74) and no longer the thing known as existence.

Gorgias then turns his attention to what is knowable and comprehensible. He remarks, "if things considered [imagined or thought] in the mind are not existent, the existent is not considered" (B3.77), that is to say, existence is incomprehensible. This supposition is backed up by the fact that one can imagine chariots racing in the sea, but that does not make such a thing happen. The operation of the mind (intellection) is fundamentally distinct from what happens in the real world; "the existent is not an object of consideration and is not apprehended" (B3.82). It is helpful to think of apprehension here in Aristotelian terms, as simple apprehension, the first operation of reasoning (logic) in which the intellect "grasps" or "apprehends" something. Simple apprehension happens when the mind first forms a concept of something in the world, and is anterior to judgment.

Finally, Gorgias proclaims that even if existence could be apprehended, "it would be incapable of being conveyed to another" (B3.83). This is because what we reveal to another is not an external substance, but is merely logos (from the Greek verb lego, "to say"--see below). Logos is not "substances and existing things" (B3.84). External reality becomes the revealer of logos (B3.85); while we can know logos, we cannot apprehend things directly. The color white, for instance, goes from a property of a thing, to a mental representation, and the representation is different than the thing itself. In its summation, this nihilistic argument becomes a "trilemma":

i. Nothing exists
ii. Even if existence exists, it cannot be known
iii. Even if it could be known, it cannot be communicated.

Couldn't you just Wittgenstein the "nothing exists" argument away by saying that this conclusion is a result of definitions?

>>Truth exists necessarily
>It is impossible for Truth to not exist. For, if it did not exist, then it would be true that Truth that does not exist.
Not so. If truth does not exist, then the statement "truth does not exist" is false, as the premise is that any kind of truth is non existent, logical or not. The very first line of your argument is self-refuting.

If “truth does not exist” is false, then truth exists. See

.

i dont get it

Russell’s essay On Denoting addresses this, as does common sense.