Better Than Zilch?

Abstract

In their paper 'Zilch', Oliver and Smiley claim that the word 'nothing' can be used as a singular term and that 'nothing' as a singular term and the word 'zilch' are empty terms, which fail to refer to anything. In this paper, we propose that 'nothing' as a singular term and 'zilch' can be used to denote null things such as absences, null objects or nothingness. We also claim that, pace their interpretation of Heidegger's 'das Nichts' as an empty term, it should be understood as such a singular term that refers to nothingness.

The Recent Engagement Between Analytic Philosophy and Heideggerian Thought: Metaphysics and Mind

“…The same could be said about being as well. However, as Casati and Fujikawa point out (‘Better than Zilch?’), even though using the notion of an empty term could be a good strategy to solve the problem of being (and nothingness), it is hard to believe that it can also be a correct interpretation of Heidegger's metaphysics. Indeed, Heidegger himself clearly claims that an object is what is represented ( Pathmarks 28).…”

Talking about nothing

“…Nevertheless, we can use these terms as genuine terms in our semantical or logical investigations. Another contribution to this debate is provided by Casati and Fujikawa [2015]. They challenge Oliver and Smiley's view as too narrow, and contend that classroom empty terms can also be interpreted as referring to some null thing.…”

A Note on Priest's Mereology

“…In the last several years, paraconsistent mereology has begun to be developed and applied to a range of philosophical issues, from puzzles about boundaries [13], to the Meinongian 'problem of nothingness' [1,2,10], to the metaphysics of unity [9]. Because these formal systems are fresh out of the package, as it were, there will inevitably be some wrinkles that need ironing out.…”

“…The next axiom is that objects are extensionally defined via their overlappers; and the final is an unrestricted principle of fusion based on a definition from Goodman [5]. 2 A similar system is found in Priest [9, ch. 6], except that there Priest rejects Asymmetry and its correlate Antisymmetry.…”

“…Priest relies on (8), but he might have more success with either (6) which is used in [13] and subsequently in [1, ch. 4] and [2,3]. Alternatively, he might try the historic (7) used [6], [11], and popularized by [8].…”