[dustin_archibald]

Originally Posted by <<>>

I have a proposition for a solution to the proble of Nothing and Everything. But before, I want to tell you all that we are not stupid for discussing such an "obvious" theme, because this is actually one of the most discussed philosophical questions, from Socrates' "ideal all", passing by Kant's "the rest, and the not rest OR not it" and Hegel's "one determined" to Wittgenstein's "possibility to exist, and reality opposed" and Deleuze's "positive cualitive difference"...

Basically, my idea is that if we want to refer to everything or notihng as an entity, as something, which although may appear not to be possible, as we don't want, but maybe if we do want to speak about them in relation to the other, or to a parallel concept, we would want ot talk about it as entity, then we say everything and nothing, but if we want to refer to what those words really mean, that is, all-the-things and no-thing-at-all then we use those two phrases and that's it, to define them.

I agree that identifying these concepts as either an entity or the "sum of it's parts" is a good idea. I would recommend using capitalization to differentiate between the two though. So when talking about entities it would be Everything or Nothing. Sum of it's parts terminology: everything (all-that-exists) or nothing (all-that-does-not-exist) (assuming we are agreeing that Nothing=non-existence). Or is that too much to type?

I like the idea since it helps to avoid ambiguity.