[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

Search:


View post   

>> No.12314147 [View]
File: 16 KB, 236x240, 885399fbcbeac6f3fec6474788b1d66a--january--north-africa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12314147

>>12314128
>it's the current year
>modernity = good, ancient = bad and dumb

yikes

>> No.12252870 [View]
File: 15 KB, 236x240, 885399fbcbeac6f3fec6474788b1d66a--january--north-africa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12252870

>>12252744

>“If, as must be done in this instance, the word atom be taken in its true sense of “ indivisible,” a sense which modern physicists no longer give to it, it may be said that an atom, since it cannot have parts, must also be without area ; now the sum of lements devoid of area can never form an area ; if atoms fulfil their own definition, it is then impossible for them to make up bodies. To this well-known and more-over decisive chain of reasoning, another may also be added, employed by Śaṅkarācārya in order to refute atomism 1 : two things can come into contact with one another either by a part of themselves or by the whole ; for atoms, devoid as they are of parts, the first hypothesis is inadmissible ; thus only the second hypothesis remains, which amounts to saying that the aggregation of two atoms can only be realized by their coincidence purely and simply, whence it clearly follows that two atoms when joined occupy no more space than a single atom and so forth indefinitely: so, as before, atoms, whatever their number, will never form a body. Thus atomism represents nothing but sheer impossibility, as we pointed out when explaining the sense in which heterodoxy is to be understood

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]