/lit/ - Literature

>>23285090
>Event B following event A. That this nexus is necessary is something different, but the observation is empirical.
The concept of causality is the concept of necessary connection. The issue isn't that we observe one event temporally follow another one, the issue is that repeated observation can never yield the concept that one event NECESSARILY follows another event because induction is not a logically valid inference. If we actually believe in causation then we have to explain how we arrived at the concept of necessary connection apart from inference from repeated empirical observations, which at best can give degress of probable belief in the continuation into the future of past contingent connections between events.

Any of you anon just keep hitting update and refresh hoping (you)s or new interesting posts bc I can't stop. I really think I'm developing a problem. not even joking.

>Originally, Cantor's theory of transfinite numbers was regarded as counter-intuitive– even shocking.

>Cantor, a devout Lutheran Christian, believed the theory had been communicated to him by God.

>Writing decades after Cantor's death, Wittgenstein lamented that mathematics is "ridden through and through with the pernicious idioms of set theory", which he dismissed as "utter nonsense" that is "laughable" and "wrong".

Did Cantor filter Witty?

THE QUESTION OF PONTIUS PILATE

"TRUTH," says the philosopher, answering Pilate's question, "is the unity of universal and subjective will." But who is to elucidate for the Pilates of our time the meaning of universal will? I once made a heroic attempt to unhusk the logic of Schopenhauer and to unravel the metaphysical skein of Hegel. But something forbidding, even obnoxious, seemed to stand between me and my purpose. The husk of generalization was too thick, too hard, and, what is worse, too thorny. It was the exogenous growth, particularly the spinosity, of a purely subjective mind. The philosopher's ego, in other words, adumbrated the universal will. And in following it, we follow a shadow that aspires to Deity.
It aspires, moreover, in conflict, not in harmony. To put it mildly and plainly, there often lurks a personal interest in the generalization of philosophers. It is often too a personal grudge. For philosophers quarrel, not only with what they understand to be the universal will, but also with each other. Indeed, not infrequently, does the human heart cry out through their bulwarks of reason. To be sure, they quarrel not like the village crones or the town trollops; but their panoply of logic is saturated with gall. And their hatreds, their jealousies, their prejudices, wearing the masks of speculation, seldom fail to recognize each other.

>>22723211
>The word grimoire is believed to be related to grammar which nicely encapsulates relation between language and magic methinks
any books that go into detail on this?
Is this related to Cratylism?

>Cratylism holds that there is a natural relationship between words and what words designate.

Why is it difficult for autistic people to converse and socialize?
“Why is it difficult for autistic people to converse and socialize?”

Largely speaking, they don’t. Get a group of autistic people together and they are likely to converse enthusiastically and build ideas, or things, together.

The neurotypical majority have difficulty conversing and socialising with autistic people because they feel threatened by any discussion of ideas and they are short on imagination about what they might build together. Both things that autistic people, in general, love to do.

Autistic people, by contrast, find it difficult to socialise with people who are afraid to talk about anything meaningful but just want to gossip about people or talk about uncontroversial but utterly unproductive matters such as the weather and the football scores.

But, being the majority, neurotypical people get away with labelling autistic people as the ones lacking social skills.

Autistic people generally have little trouble conversing about a subject of interest. Their primary problem is conversing about nothing.

They are also likely to see no value in socialising for its own sake. Their strengths are in doing things together, not just being together.

The contention underlying the question embodies more prejudice than reality.

I just wanna know the Forms already bros. I'm done with the physical realm. Which books show the way?

books that treat language as a system?

pic unrelated