We all learn about the mistake of treating �nothing� as if it were a term standing for something; but is it a mistake to treat it as an empty term, denoting nothing? We argue not, and we introduce �zilch�, defined as �the non-self-identical thing�, as a term which is empty as a matter of logical necessity. We contrast its behaviour with that of the quantifier �nothing�, and illustrate its uses. We use the same idea to vindicate Locke�s, Descartes� and Hume�s handling of �nothing�, and we show how Heidegger�s �das Nichts nichtet� comes out as logically true.
© 2001-2024 Fundación Dialnet · Todos los derechos reservados