Much ado about nothing

Parmenides believed that nothing changes and that he was also one of the first of those who used deductive argument in his philosophical work.

That it is and it is not possible for it not to be.

That it is not and it is necessary for it not to be.

He came up with a really cool concept of nothingness: that nothingness does not exist because if nothingness exists, it is something. So something like a pen cannot cease to exist as well. If the pen ceases to exist, the pen has become nothing and nothingness has come to existence which is not possible as nothingness cannot exist. His idea revolves around the fundamental argument that nothing cannot exist.

He also believed in no change, no difference and no motion based on his argument of the inexistence of nothingness. If I were to change, from being dumb to smart, I would have lost the quality of dumbness which results again in nothing coming to existence and this can’t happen! If we were to have differences, you being smarter than I am, you would bear a quality smarter which I don’t and nothingness again has come to existence as I lack the quality of being smarter. Oh wait, doesn’t that make you and me the same? Which we all know is quite fallacious, if you think about it. Motion is then also not possible, because in order to move there must be nothing there to obstruct me, but there’s no such thing as nothing. What am I talking about? We can therefore only think of things that exist.

When I talk about Mario, do you know who’s Mario? You do, don’t you? But Mario doesn’t exist, does he? I never knew he existed. Then what are you thinking about? I thought I just said that we can only think of things that exist. Parmenides believed that that was IT and everything was just IT. That’s IT for now.