Well the simple answer is the one that I already gave: by definition. Look at the way that the word is constructed: "nothingness". No-thing-ness. Not-a-thing-ness. I mean, it's pretty straightforward and undeniable.Laird wrote:Dan Rowden wrote:Why not?
But if you want something more elaborate, let's look at the components of my definition and see that none of them apply: I've defined a thing as a "concept, object, entity, quality or event".
* concept: I've already acknowledged that the concept of nothingness can be considered to be a thing, but we're talking now about the actuality of nothingness, so clearly "concept" doesn't apply.
* object: it's called no-thing-ness for a reason; namely that it is not an object and does not contain any objects - it is devoid of anything.
Yet it is a state differentiated from and bounded by that which is not it, right? It is also something perceived for what it is (or isn't if you prefer), right?