>only that which exists exists, things that do not exist DO

Perhaps you just don't understand what he meant and just what the implications of that statement actually are.

>there's no such thing as nothing
yeah right. why do we have a word for it then?

>>8310944
>if there is a word for it, it exists

2 + 2 is trivial so we should never bring it up.

>>8309195
How can something exist? What does existing mean? Does myself from 1 minute ago exist?

>>8310988
No but why did he have to write an autistic poem about it

>>8309195
I'm going to get accused of STEMprimacy for saying this but Euclid was a philosophically more important thinker than any part of the socratic trinity (to which parmenides is a minor extension). The vast span of time between Socrates and (Kant or Russell/Frege/Whitehead depending on your inclination) was certainly fruitful but it wasn't until we accepted the truth of analysis into our hearts (something I'll argue Euclid was among the first to do while it took the Russell-Godel thing to really engrain into philosophy) that we truly could make meaningful.

His problem was a failure to systemize and axiomatize, as was the case for most the greeks most of the time (although there are some truly admirable exceptions). Well constructed sentences, compelling colloquial argument, were prefered to more demonstrable, mechanical systems. The most vast gulfs of Greek thought are almost trivially treated with even hints of formalism.

>>8311002
>Does myself from 1 minute ago exist?
With enough philosophy books, someday you may be able to have a (very personal) answer to this