Devil's advocate for why ontology is meaningless and vacuous.

[Arkilogue]

I've given up defining "existence" and "reality" in non-circular terms. I've not seen it done. I use them only comparatively, or informally. Hence absurdism

It get's even better with the meaning of "nothing"...

Nothing | Definition of Nothing by Merriam-Webster
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nothing
Merriam‑Webster
Full Definition of nothing. 1 a : something that does not exist b : the absence of all magnitude or quantity; also : zero 1a c : nothingness, nonexistence. 2

The first word in the definition of nothing...is "something".

Then it says "the absence of all magnitude or quantity"....which is not found in nature.....doesn't sound like science can help here. So then I come full circle in concluding that "nothing" actually does exist by virtue of the nonexistence of it's definition. "Nothing" is true.

---

I define "existence" as "presence" and "reality" as "non-imaginaryness" that's how I get round it.

That's my metaphysics.

Funny thing though, looking at civilization around us, every single iota of it was once just an idea in someone's imagination.

Take Buzz Lightyear for instance: He's a real toy from a real movie about made up characters, echoing a real cultural schism during America's space race with Russia...

Is the "post 911 world" real? Or do manufacturers of "patriotism" need it to be real? Are we real characters in a made up movie?

Who's paradigm is the real paradigm? Maybe none of them. Like in a dream, perhaps "reality" isn't needed when content can be emotional produced "out of nothing" and people move accordingly.