/lit/ - Literature

>>22405462
The whole argument works through linguistic sleight of hand by forcing the question of Being into a false dichotomy. By abusing "is", "being", etc., and treating "is" as determinate in ways that it is not, you're able to make the simple predicate of being both vague and all-encompassing. I'm lifting up the curtain to see the man behind it.
>Moreover, the same argument can be applied to modalities too (such as "actual", "possible", "necessary" and so on)
I don't see how you would do it.
>3) If they both are possible, then they are not different with regards to their possibility.
>4) If 3), then they must only differ with regards to their actuality.
>5) Wait, so they're actually different? The changes we notice in the sensible realm mean something? FUCK FUCK FUCK ELEATIC BROS THIS WASN'T SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN