/lit/ - Literature

>>14762983
>This is OP. You guys could not read correctl a text even if your life depended on it. I am going to slowly explain my argument, so that your pea brains actually understand it. It's not about utility, it's about the essence of the theory being made null.
>Newtonian mechanics main idea is the idea of being able to expresses the relation between forces and mouvement (F=dp/dt), this allows us to express interactions between objects numerically, and thus describe them more precisely, and thus understand them more profoundly. Now suppose we did as guenon said and replaced + with x, then, in order to for instance describe the interaction of an oscillator (a oscillating pendulum for instance) with a good approximation, then by using Newton's law, we would have after some calculations what is known as an ordinary differential equation (equation with derivatives, in this case second degree, of the form ax'' + bx' + cx + d = 0). Now with +, you can use math to solve this, and so you can by solving it describe entirely the movement of the oscillator with a good approximation, and so you have understood it better. With Guenon's way of doing things, you would not be able to solve this, (ax''bx'cxd=1) and even if you could, what you would find would be utterly complicated and wouldn't even describe accurately the system, simply because what he is describing does not correspond to the reality (the relation between the forces is not a relation of proportionality, the signs + and x have a well-defined meaning in physics because of their mathematical properties) but only describes what HE views as reality. His way of doing things is not science (both in the platonic sense and the modern sense) since he does not try to better understand the world using it. He already has a vision of the world he has gained from reading ancient texts or whatever, and is just blindly following, not even once doubting the thing he believes in.
>I too hate the scientism of anglos, but I believe that you guys are just like them, you blindly follow a doctrine and act as if it destroys all others (your Guenon btfo'd is the same as their Dawkins btfo'd). At no point does Guenon use any sound reasoning to argue for his case, and at no point does he define, even slightly, the word he uses. He is a joke of a writer and isn't taken seriously for a reason...
>Now I am going to end this with something that just came up to me: maybe guenon meant that + become x and 0 becomes 1, basically just exchange the signs without the meaning (0x0=2 for 1+1=2 for instance and 0+2=2 for 1x2=2) even though I doubt he meant this, that is, for obvious reason, absolutely retarded, since it is literally the same thing...