Larry

“Je suis à la place d'où se vocifèe que "l'univers est un défaut dans la pureté du Non-Être". Et ceci non pas sans raison, car à se garder, cette place fait languir l'Être lui-même. Elle s'appelle la Jouissance, et c'est elle dont le défaut rendrait vain l'univers. En ai-je donc la charge? -- Oui sans doute. Cette jouissance dont le manque fait l'Autre inconsistant, est-elle donc la mienne? L'expérience prouve qu'elle m'est ordinairement interdite, et ceci non pas seulement, comme le croiraient les imbéciles, par un mauvais arrangement de la société, mais je dirais par la faute de l'Autre s'il existait: l'Autre n'existant pas, il ne me reste qu'à prendre la faute sur Je, c'est-à-dire à croire à ce à quoi l'expérience nous conduit tous, Freud en tête: au péché originel.”
― Jacques Lacan, Écrits

“I’d never been a true believer that politics can solve the dark heart of humanity’s problems and the lawlessness of our sexuality, or that a bureaucratic band aid is going to heal the deep contradictory rifts and the cruelty, the passion and the fraudulence that factor into what it means to be human.”
― Bret Easton Ellis, White

“From those of us who are left behind: you will be remembered, you were the one I needed, I loved you in my dreams.”
― Bret Easton Ellis, Lunar Park

“...Alas, this is simply an illusion. For how can it be possible to relate two or more observational experiences, even if they concern the relations between things that are perceived to be the same or similar, as falsifying (or confirming) each other, rather than merely neutrally record them as one experience here and one experience here, one repetitive of another or not, and leaving it at that (i.e., regarding them as logically incommensurable) unless one presupposed the existence of time-invariantly operating causes? Only if the existence of such time-invariantly operating causes could be assumed would there by any logically compelling reason to regard them as commensurable and as falsifying or confirming each other.

However, Popper, like all empiricists, denies that any such assumption can be given an a priori defense (there are for him no such things as a priori true propositions about reality such as the causality principle would have to be) and is itself merely hypothetical. Yet clearly, if the possibility of constantly operating causes as such is only a hypothetical one, then it can hardly be claimed, as Popper does, that any particular predictive hypothesis could ever be falsified or confirmed. For then the falsification (or confirmation) would have to be considered a hypothetical one: any predictive hypothesis would only under go tests whose status as tests were themselves hypothetical. And hence one would be right back in the muddy midst of skepticism.

Only if the causality principle as such could be unconditionally established as true, could any particular causal hypothesis ever be testable, and the outcome of a test provide rational grounds for deciding whether or not to uphold a given hypothesis.”
― Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Economic Science and the Austrian Method