/lit/ - Literature

>>21222595
I am not talking about abstractions. I am talking about physical events which have been instantiated. Also, with regard to adding to actual metaphysical infinity, I would suggest reading pic related. You certainly can not add to an actual infinity.

I don't think this book got the proper shakedown that it required. Some main questions I have:
>Guenon distinguishes indefinite from infinite
>now we have: indefinite, finite, infinite
Are these solid metaphysical categories for dealing with numbers? Guenon's vocabulary reminds of Plato's categories in Philebus, where he distinguishes between the unlimited, the limited, and the mixed respectively.
>zero, infinitesimal, infinity
Are these concepts best thought of as functions and not numbers? Are they metaphysically sound? It is worth noting that infinitesimals, if they are not a mere "useful fiction" like Leibniz called them, imply the possibility of infinite divisibility of the universe.
>continuity vs. discreteness
How do we reconcile the continuity of indefinite things with the discreteness of finite things?
>Leibniz, Newton, etc.
Do we lose anything regarding the intelligibility of Newton's physical laws when we adopt Guenon's perspective? It would be nice if physics and metaphysics were in harmony.

Here's a solid primer on the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McuTZRBNCXg

Checking the archive, there was only an opinionated blowhard who thought that Guenon was regurgitating Leibniz, even though Guenon critiqued Leibniz extensively in this book. So, we're going to need another rerun. This time, I hope our discussion will be definitive.

lol this is absolute autism. Apparently by changing some notations you can make math "supra-rational" and a "sacred science", this is pure delusion, the guy is so far up his own ass that instead of admitting he doesn't get shit about math he accuses people much smarter than him for making math "profane" as if that makes any sense.
The guy even says at some point that the notation Fa/b + Fb/a = 0 (newton's equilibrium law) is false because 0 represents lack of manifestation, and so the law should be rewritten as n x n' = 1 (n and n' being the intensity of the forces) because the equilibrium should symbolise the unity of "Being". This is absolutely retarded and some of the most pseud shit I've ever seen, how the fuck are you supposed to apply Newton's law with that? The Newtonian would loose all it's interests, which is the ability to rigorously calculate the intensity of the interaction between objects (good luck solving ODE's if you replace + with x... it's almost as if he never did actual physics before).
He acts as if math and science has lost it's meaning, but then the only thing he discusses is vocabulary and notation, at no point he adresses the actual substance of science or it's development.
This is what you get where instead of rigor and logic you choose to just blindly follow past thoughts and traditions, all his arguments are arguments from authority (muh leibniz) or just unfounded and undefined claims/objects (muh "Being"/"Principle"). This is why people working in humanities should never speak about STEM, especially if they believe in nonsense (which is the case of all the "mystical" pseuds some of you seem to worship lately).
I am thankful though, I've never laughed this much reading a book before. Thanks Guenon.

TL;DR: Guenon was retro-actively refuted by Cauchy and Weierstrass.