Nothing

Quine's meaning skepticism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6Q19GwfGU0 Kripke's meaning skepticism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzF-zf4F5yM Can we conceive the impossible? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYsT1Bk1_8Q Moorean arguments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7zt-tEYpoU

Westerhoff really said "I don't exactly think, therefore I ain't exactly"

Descartes' career in shambles

-Hey, what is this video you are watching? -Nothing.

Please stop trying to convince me I don't have hands. I need them to leave comments which increase engagement on your videos.

⠀

Good contrast to the video "ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING"

Neti Neti and Ontological Nihilism: A Connection The Vedic phrase "Neti Neti" (Not this, not this) encapsulates a process of relentless negation. At its core, it suggests that reality, or the ultimate truth (Brahman), cannot be defined by any conceptual category or worldly phenomenon (blue sky thinking if you like). This aligns strikingly with ontological nihilism, a philosophical stance asserting that nothing is foundational to this and this to being relative to any observer based on the thesis of illusionism of reality where appearances are real but if fact is nothing giving rise to cycles qua zero where zero immunises metaphorically one thing from another through connection of infinitesimals.

Bunny Lebowski: Uli doesn't care about anything. He's a Nihilist. The Dude: Ah, that must be exhausting.

Based on the thumbnail I expected this video to have zero sound or visuals. Disappointed. 1/10.

The Nothing Noths.

I love it when this channel introduces wildly improbable positions like Ontological Nihilism or Trivialism, and by the end of the video I kinda end up subscribing to them.

I'm always interested in weird views, but this one strikes me as very boring: both of the premises that Westerhoff gives strike me as independently extremely implausible and are by far and away minority positions in contemporary metaphysics. What would be interesting is an argument for the thesis that nothing exists from premises that most philosophers would independently accept.

thank god

Sometimes I feel like I could permanently solve the field of ontology if only I had the opportunity to publish like one paper. I really think I could do it.

Love that I recently made the COMPLETE opposite video a week ago, basically titled EVERYTHING.

You may be very interested in a few of the “radical non duality” channels here on YouTube, sometimes referred to as “neo-advaita”, there’s a lot of overlap with your topic and they are definitely exploring some of the same ideas The most prominent speaker would be Tony Parsons, followed by people like Jim Newman, Richard Sylvester, Kenneth Madden and Andreas Muller and others who talk with anyone who shows up at their meetings (The best search results would probably be found by searching for any of those names individually) I’ve been pretty fascinated for a few months now, it’s always difficult to find the words to describe what they’re talking about exactly… but if anyone wants to listen and share their thoughts, I’ll definitely be checking this comment every now and then and will probably add some more thoughts when they occur to me

I’m not really convinced by the idea that if, for all X, some sane arguments reject the existence of X, then ontological nihilism is in no worse a boat than that argument. Just because A is plausible and B is plausible does not mean that “A and B” is plausible, a la the lottery paradox. Showing that there is always a defensible view that denies the existence of something does not show that all such arguments are JOINTLY defensible.

Q: Why is there something rather than nothing? A: There is not something at all!

Kane would you say The buddhist concept of anattā which pertains that there is no permanent changing "self" or the principle of "non self" is similar to the eliminist position of there being no fundamental substance an entity is made up of, as we get an infinite regress into subatomic particles, quarks, and maybe strings and so on