2007-03-27 17:33:58 · 6 answers · asked by The Knowledge Server 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
I am unable to see the difference between the two statements. Could you help me to resolve?
2007-03-27 17:36:12 · update #1
OMG, go away... in unity...
2007-03-27 17:39:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both are true. In 1, nothing is used as everything but unity, making it distinguishable (different) from unity, in that, everything else but unity can be separated. In 2, nothing is used as the absence of something, showing that in every "nothing" there is an encompassing feature that unites them all, absence of something. Therefore, nothing is indistinguishable (same) from unity.
2007-03-27 18:06:39 · answer #2 · answered by Said 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1. nothing is not the same as/part of unity
2. nothing is the same as /part of unity.
I believe that number 1 is correct. Nothingness is not part of unity.
2007-03-27 17:42:36 · answer #3 · answered by shea 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
without a gang u will never feel like a celebrating life ,without a gang u live in a coffin.*opposites r the same thing,blending the opposites are yummy
2007-03-27 17:49:49 · answer #4 · answered by artventura_maruf 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'ts the same thing. 0+0=0.
2007-03-27 17:46:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do I look like I care? Words, words, and more words.
We are one, that is all that matters. Distinguishale or not.
2007-03-31 16:45:10 · answer #6 · answered by canron4peace 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋