with the “it seems” I feel like there is not a lot of agreement about what Gorgias is actually writing about
most of it to me feels like he is making a shitpost just to infuriate Eleatics
His argument is honestly more convoluted than Parmenides’ argument. I have no idea what he is trying to say.
Existent or non-existant
Neither of the possible cases from this are true
→ Thus nothing
That the non-existant doesn’t exist seems fairly plain to me. It’s a similar line of argument as Parmenides had.
Oh okay so the existent isn’t because it has to be either created or some point or be eternal.
So if it was eternal it would be imperfect, because for it to be somewhere, it needs to be encompassed by something but then it wouldn’t be infinite, so it is a self-destroying assumption.
If it was created it was created out of the existent (unreasonable) or out of the non-existent, which doesn’t exist.
I do not quite understand his argument on thought.