@Zetherin,
Zetherin;136277 wrote:
No offense guys, but try to be more clear. I'm begging you. You know, from a philosophical standpoint (maybe I'll receive more sympathy this way).
Do you know Kant? He thought that concepts were transcendentally imposed by the mind, which is to say automatically. He thought that we
automatically found cause in nature. He founded his analytic on Aristotle's categories, 12 altogether, and these were, for Kant, the necessary structure of human thinking.
But Hegel first and then Wittgenstein realized that all of these Kantian categories are modifications of a single analytic. For Wittgenstein, logic reduces to tautology and contradiction. All of formal logic is built up from only these two factors. All of it. And all of math. And this is also the logical basis of human discourse.
Nature does seem to have causality, but this a human projection, which is pragmatically justified. Causality is a meme. For causality cannot be logically justified. Hume showed this long ago, which inspired Kant to "refute" him, but Kant failed, although he
seemed to have succeeded.
Hegel shows this in his logic, but the central concept of his logic is hard to grasp, because it's an utterly strange maneuver. Wittgenstein, for whatever reason, came to the same conclusion. Causality, time, and the self are useful fictions. I may sound strange, but I can justify all my statements. I "believe" in Reason, with a minimum of contingent metaphor. I had my fill of Nietzche and Rorty, who were half right. I bumped into ontology. It's the root science, the root of all science. That is what H & W discovered.
I realize how difficult my last post seemed. Although the words are precise and carefully chosen, it's a thick brew. So I am happy to decode it. Thanks, Z, for at least caring enough to ask for clarification...
