What actually exists?

>valid distinction
You're just using circular reasoning.

The Self

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

one's experience of something that may exist

define exist

Whatever I feel like exists and doesn't exist you fucking nerd.

>stating that there are states of being as the presence of or lack of a presence of entities is circular reasoning
Umm... No?

watch out boys he's got his fallacy rolodex

God and his creations.

Russian collusion with Trump

>What actually exists?
The eternal anglo

the absurd, nostalgia and irrationality.

Sense impressions

Cogito ergo sum

I exist, all of you are hallucinations

But the supposed lack of existence has no properties that can be described and is logically inconceivable. Contrasting it to existence is meaningless.

Me

Everything except nothing. But there is a difference between existing objectively and subjectively. Words, for instance, are objective, but meanings are subjective.

Not you, because you're obviously a thinkless brainlet.

Words are social facts, and don't objectively exist though. Should've used a better example

I can give you one thing.
Whatever that have exists for my mind to be able to, at least, have the illusion of reality have be something. Ergo, what makes me able to think is real and distinguishable from nothing.

Complementing;
Whatever makes me able to think has to be real, even if even my mind is not, for if it wasn't real, my mind would cease to be and I wouldn't be able to think.

There is that which knows and that which is known.

faggotry you can find it everywhere at Veeky Forums

if you want all the answers they are in this playlist
youtube.com/watch?v=DXGF9UUGD04&list=PLtFnfSc9NwNzMHGZzPYroNJCPDd4Ymjgf

i give you something that exists
*unzips dick*

...

But even cogito ergo sum is somewhat arbitrary in the end, because it assumes that a thought requires a thinker, or that we can meaningfully distinguish a thought from a non-thought. The latter is inconceivable.

Did Stirner actually exist or was it just Engels using a persona to fuck with Marx

this doesn't even make sense, I know you thought it sounded smart in your head, but this is nigger tier philosophy

I am not a retarded nigger because I am not. That sentence isn't truncated. There is no reality or unreality, or self or non-self. There isn't an illusion of these things, or even a void. All ideas when taken to their logical conclusions rely on either unproven axioms, circular reasoning, or infinite regress. Why should the dualism of """""existence""""" and """""non-existence""""" be exempt from this scrutiny? You as a ((non)individual) are simply unwilling to challenge this. The """""laws""""" of """""thought""""" simultaneously were and were not a mistake. """""I""""" """""am""""" (not) bothered by this """""contradiction""""" because fuck language.

Values exists, your question is nigger tier because are asking what is the difference between 1 and 0.

1 is the pretense of something zero is the absence of something

Therefore to answer your nigger tier question you consider philosophy 1 is something 0 is nothing

>values exist
BWAHAHAHAHA. Mathematics is *literally* a meme. """You""" can draw a line and call it "one" and draw an oval and call it "zero". So what? """I""" can quop a grongo and clibble a blick if I want too, because those terms """mean""" whatever they're defined as. Who is to say that "one" thing is not really "two" "halves", or "half" a "pair"? Can """you""" really hold a "physical" "zero" in "one" hand and "one" in the other, show them to """me""", and then give """me""" a flawless ontological system trumping Gödel's Theorem that demonstrates both you and """your""" """hands""" """exist""" as some objective mereological whole, or in any sense at all? """I""" don't think so, kiddo. Kant was too autistic to take analytic knowledge to its """logical""" conclusion of LITERALLY being the circlejerk of human """knowledge""". But you're too """smart""" to realize this. You have too much invested in this not-even-a-phantasm of reality to question it, and thus you LIE. You lie with every single dingleberry of the nonconcept of """meaningful language"""" you pick from the crusted hairs around that primordial toothed sphincter you call a mouth. Language is nothing more than the transmission of pretentious delusions, but """I""" have enough intrepid idiocy to """realize""" this, and """you""" do not. The unwise know everything - and they'll tell """you""" that themselves. Such disdain for the retardation of """the negro""" shows an over(((valu)))ation of "intelligence" in the first place - as there are some kinds of stupidity that require a minimum of intelligence to """learn""', but only formless beings such as my ((non)self) are able to descend this strange loop to (sub/e)merge transcended on the path of Omniscient Fool-Kings, dancing stationary jigs to the silent din of pan pipes in the quantum outer-nucleus of nirvana.

first tell me what is existance. Everything your consciousness can produce and observe exists in a form or another in my opinion.

Anything can be an argument.
>muh logical fallacy
lmao nice memes, you know those are just as valid arguments as any right?

>Math is a meme