Language

What are the possible responses when people say that concepts like "being" and "nothingness" are essentially meaningless?

Comments

Thanks for your question. In general, I don't have any idea what the entire range of possible responses are to a question or comment, but here are a few to the ones you mention:

1. One response is to agree with the criticism and thereby acknowledge that these concepts are indeed meaningless.

That's one possible response, but it might leave you a little unsatisfied, so you might consider another:

2. It is perhaps true that some philosophers use terms like these (I'll talk of terms rather than concepts) in a way that is more obfuscatory than illuminating. However, it's not so hard to use 'being' as a term for everything that exists. That seems perfectly intelligible even if we can't give a full account of what that includes, that is of all that does in fact exist. Also, whereas 'nothingness' is a bit hifalutin, one can use 'nothing' with a perfectly clear meaning. For instance a person might point out that there's nothing in the fridge, meaning not that it contains nothing at all (not even air) but nothing that can feasibly be eaten. This seems pretty clear--no less clear than pointing out that there are three letters at the table or someone at the door.

The strategy here is to point out that the words in question can be used with a perfectly clear meaning. If you use those words with what you take to be a clear meaning, but one different from the cases I've given, then you should have no trouble exemplifying it with specific examples just as I've done.

Mitch Green

Read another response by Mitch Green

Read another response about Language