I said earlier not to bring set theory to me. I’m going to make an exception. For now.
I have a problem with using the word subset when you should use the word example. The only time you should use the word subset in place of example is when there’s no possible way you can find another example in that subset. But if that is the case, how is it a subset and not just a set? I would be interested in seeing such an… “example”.
Then there is the distinction between a feeder set, or the first principles set from which everything else (subsets, examples) is deduced — versus building to the feeder set from examples. You can’t build to (be an example of) a feeder set that is EMPTY & therefore not real (in order to feed out examples) so the feeder set’s examples have to be eternally subsumed in the eternal feeder (first principles) set.
Question. Is EVERYONE the feeder set, or eternally subsumed in it?
Follow up: How are you a subset and not just an example? …because of the inner polis that is in the image of the feeder set?
In the most common interpretation of modal logic, one considers “logically possibleworlds”. If a statement is true in all possible worlds, then it is a necessary truth. If a statement happens to be true in our world, but is not true in all possible worlds, then it is a contingent truth. A statement that is true in some possible world (not necessarily our own) is called a possible truth.
In the most common interpretation of modal logic, one considers “logically possibleworlds”. If a statement is true in all possible worlds, then it is a necessary truth. If a statement happens to be true in our world, but is not true in all possible worlds, then it is a contingent truth. A statement that is true in some possible world (not necessarily our own) is called a possible truth.
“Why?” seems an intrinsic preference to all persons, at least until we learn to go with a flow, as if we are running a program. Why does it go like this and not like that? Why is this necessary or best? Why do other people handle this differently? What if we try out some other possibilities? Why have we always done it this way? We have an innate curiosity for quality assurance.
The absurd is something we can’t handle because it is a dissonance resulting from a lack of meaning, or disorienting failure to grasp it. We can revolt against being told “you get what you get and you don’t throw a fit” or “because I said so” by rejecting unexplained dogmatic meanings/explanations… jettisoning all meaning out with the bathwater. We can make fun of people who ask “why?” and say (with all the confidence and certainty of a religious fanatic) they are asking meaningless questions that have no answers. We can pride ourselves in only accepting conclusions which can be verified, while contradicting ourselves by making predictions about a future that does not verifiably (to us, usually) exist.
This preference can block our full development as whole persons in alignment within original (ontologically prior) personhood.