Tamminen wrote: ↑April 28th, 2018, 9:49 am
Let us suppose there is nothing. I really think there is nothing, because that is the most simple and stable state of affairs there can be: the lack of all states of affairs. Why should there be anything?
So I think there is nothing. Therefore, there is at least this 'thinking of nothing'. Now we have 'nothing' and 'thinking of nothing', subject and object....
You began with an assumption, that there is nothing, and then you introduced a further assumption, that there is you thinking there is nothing. Thus:
Assumption 1: There is nothing.
Assumption 2: There is I, thinking there is nothing.
Since 'I' is not nothing, but is a thing, these two assumptions contradict one another. Therefore they cannot both be true. Any argument you develop based on these two assumptions is thus based on a contradiction, and an argument based on a contradiction is not a valid argument.
Tamminen wrote: ↑April 28th, 2018, 9:49 am
What is this object we call 'nothing'? It can only be myself, because it is nothing, and there is no other 'nothing' than me, the subject.
Nothing is not an object. It is the absence of all objects. You are not the absence of all objects, you are an object (and also a thinking subject, but that is by the way). To identify yourself with nothing is an error.
I think perhaps you are confusing two senses of 'object': object as the object of thought, and object as something that exists. The first requires a thinking subject, the second does not. It is the second sense of object that we invoke when we say that nothing is the absence of all objects (or things), not the first. If you confuse the two, it can seem to you that because nothing as the object of thought requires the presence of a thinking subject, a thinking subject is also required where you have nothing as the absence of all objects; but this is not the case.