[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 204 KB, 960x640, t-Paris-Review-Williams-Table.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11163378 No.11163378 [Reply] [Original]

>Horkheimer and Adorno point to the basis of the disease: "Even the deductive form of science reflects hierarchy and coercion...the whole logical order, dependency, progression, and union of [its] concepts is grounded in the corresponding conditions of social reality--that is, the division of labor.

>Husserl concluded that modern, mathematical science prevents us from knowing life as it is. And the rise of science has fueled ever more specialized knowledge, that stunning and imprisoning progression so well-known by now.

>The complete objectification of time, so much with us today, was achieved by Issac Newton, who mapped the workings of the Galilean-Cartesian clockwork universe. Product of the severely repressed Puritan outlook, which focused on sublimating sexual energy into brutalizing labor, Newton spoke of absolute time, "flowing equably without regard to anything external." Born in 1642, the year of Galileo's death, Newton capped the Scientific Revolution of the seventeenth century by developing a complete mathematical formulation of nature as a perfect machine, a perfect clock.

>The goal of establishing logic on mathematical grounds was related to an even more ambitious effort by the end of the nineteenth century, that of establishing the foundations of math itself. As capitalism proceeded to redefine reality in its own image and became desirous of securing its foundations, the "logic" stage of math in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, fresh from new triumphs, sought the same. David Hilberts theory of formalism, one such attempt to banish contradiction or error, explicitly aimed at safeguarding "the state power of mathematics for all time from all 'rebellions.'"

>Heidegger felt that there is an inherent tendency for Western thinking to merge into the mathematical sciences, and saw science as "incapable of awakening, and in fact emasculating, the spirit of genuine inquiry." We find ourselves, in an age when the fruits of science threaten to end human life altogether, when a dying capitalism seems capable of taking everything with it, more apt to want to discover the ultimate origins of the nightmare.

>When the world and its thought (Levi-Strauss and Chomsky come immediately to mind) reach a condition that is increasingly mathematized and empty (where computers are widely touted as capable of feelings and even of life itself), the beginnings of this bleak journey, including the origins of the number concept, demand comprehension. It may be that this inquiry is essential to save us and our humanness.

I hope you guys don't study math and continue to ruin the world.

>> No.11163382

>>11163378
http://www.primitivism.com/number.htm

>> No.11163424

Astoundingly stupid. It's all rhetoric. At least Land can claim that some of what he writes is fiction.

>> No.11163519

gödel's theorems made science more modest then 1000s of pages by these imbeciles ever could

>> No.11163537

>>11163424
what do you make of the ongoing shift in the labor market, from manual to automated processes, even in fields such as 'human resource management'? you don't see this as an extension of social rationalization? that this has no psychological consequences?

>> No.11163541

>>11163519
how?

>> No.11163566

>>11163541
by making it recognize its own limitation at pursuit of knowledge and reaching final answers.

>> No.11163573

>>11163378
>Implying a humaness exist
>Implying that there haven't been billions and billions of humaties, all already wiped out by the flood of history
>Implying the mechanisms of natural selection won't end up creating another species capable of living along with machines anyway
>Maths is bad because it hurts my feelings (and trees)

>> No.11163603

>>11163566
leaving aside the fact that the theorems are not really pertinent to science generally, but to the foundations of mathematics (engineers don't particularly care if the arithmetic they use isn't demonstrably 'complete', nor internally 'consistent'; the rockets still fly more or less as they are designed to)--
was that the consequence, historically? a new modesty?
consider carefully all the events of the twentieth century proceeding, and even more those of our new millennium. what promises have been made for us by our futurists.

>> No.11163604
File: 24 KB, 485x443, 1519570021880.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11163604

grug go forward in time to assassinate galilei and descartes
maybe pythagoras
ooga buga

>> No.11163622

This anti-mathematics article is from a Catholic priest, who was also a professor of mathematics.

-

Nothing could be more distinctive of the age in which we live than the overpowering prominence of mathematics. All through the Catholic centuries, arithmetic and geometry constituted all the mathematics that an educated Christian was asked to learn. Even these two subjects were treated from a more contemplative point of view, which made them far more harmonious with other liberal studies. Arithmetic consisted in the study of the properties of numbers; geometry in the study of shapes and figures. When not overdone, and when counterbalanced by the proper correctives from the other types of knowledge, geometry and arithmetic, as they used to be taught, cultivated a few desirable virtues of the mind like clarity and precision, and sharpened the mind for the perception of harmony, rhythm, and pattern in the study of nature and of Holy Scripture. But even then, many saints and sages warned against the excessive preoccupation with such studies, and especially against the seductive clarity of mathematics; for it is not enough for the mind to be accurate and clear; we are bound to ask “accurate and clear about what?” Since in mathematics accuracy and clarity are achieved at the price of the reality and the goodness of the object, it is a danger of the mathematical mind to continue to sacrifice reality and goodness for the sake of clarity in every other field in which man must seek and find the truth.

But in our time, education is overwhelmed by mathematics and on more than one score. For, while a contemplative interest in the properties of shapes and numbers is almost completely extinct, an illiberal and utterly inhuman form of mathematics dominates the years of learning of our boys and girls, almost completely from the very first year of the primary school to the very last year of college. In place of arithmetic and geometry, whose relation to reality is definite and understandable, there is now an indefinite confusion of branches which go by the name of mathematics, the nature of whose objects nobody understands! Such topics as topology, non-Eudidean geometry, Boolean algebra, transfinite numbers, projective geometry; not to speak of other more recognizable subjects like algebra, trigonometry, integral calculus, vector analysis and the theory of equations. These new subjects are not only more confusing but much more difficult to acquire, and therefore much less likely to leave the mind at leisure for other liberal studies.

>> No.11163623

>>11163603
>was that the consequence, historically? a new modesty?
The consequences are that no one forces you to consider science as anything more than a useful map. If anything forms of self expression have exponentially multiplied in the last 70 years.

>> No.11163627

>>11163537
how does that imply math itself and "deductive science" are the manifestations of power?

when Euclid say parallels are lines that don't touch, was he actually talking about how the virtue of a slave can never touch the real virtue of the hellenic citizen?

>> No.11163633

>>11163622
But the predominance of mathematics today is not restricted to those courses which go by its name, because mathematics, in some form or other, in matter or in method, has crept into every other corner of the curriculum. According to the modern positivistic conception, mathematics and not wisdom is considered as the prototype of science. In subjects ranging from physics to education, covering every field of human learning, there is an evident tendency to assimilate all knowledge to mathematical knowledge and to resolve all realities into mathematical formulas. This trend reaches its apex in the development of symbolic logic, in which guise mathematics invades even the field of philosophy, to distort all the basic conceptions of the mind, and to deflect all the activities of thought from attaining their fulfillment in true wisdom which consists in knowledge about God, by keeping them whirling endlessly around the nihilistic circle of sheer mathematical emptiness.

Now in an attempt to determine the influence of mathematics on the mind of a Christian, it would be folly to ignore the fact that after twenty centuries of Christian living, it is impossible to name one single patron saint for mathematics. There are Catholics indeed who occupied themselves considerably with mathematics and as far as we know kept the faith; but I know of no mathematician whose faith burned so brilliantly as to earn him a place among the stars of sanctity. Nor is this a mere coincidence, for any one of us can look into his own mind to find that there is no other kind of human knowledge or human experience which offers less in terms of value for the Christian message than mathematics. Almost all that one needs in the way of mathematics in order to learn all of Holy Scripture and all the Doctors of the Church, does not exceed the ability to count up to a thousand and to distinguish between a vertical and a horizontal line. Whatever it is you talk about in mathematics, it is never anything you can carry over to your meditations, or employ in your prayers; it gives you no courage in your moments of despair, and no consolation in your loneliness.

In the field of philosophy, mathematics has always been fertile grounds for sophistry. There is hardly any other intellectual interest which has contributed more to confuse men about fundamental truths regarding God, man, and the universe, than mathematics. Just to mention the names of Thales, Pythagoras, Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, Whitehead and Russell, would suffice to convince one even slightly acquainted with the history of thought about the great number of minds that were deceived by the mirage of mathematics, and misled to accept fraudulent substitutes for the saving truth. I believe that an unprejudiced consideration of the nature of mathematics and of the nature of its objects would reveal clearly that all these charges leveled against the mathematical mind are rooted in the very nature and essence of things.

>> No.11163637

>>11163633
But what kind of a science is mathematics? Is it a practical science which envisages the achievement of a good, or a speculative science which envisages the attainment of truth? A practical science, like medicine or ethics, would be eliminated by the elimination of the corresponding good. For example, if men were indifferent to health and its opposite there would be no criterion for distinguishing between a right prescription and a wrong one, and consequently, medicine would cease to be a science. In a similar way, if men per absurdum were suddenly to become neutral to the attainment of happiness or its opposite, that would be the end of ethics. But what good, if ceasing, would determine the end of mathematics? None whatever, for the simple reason that mathematics prescinds from all good and all value. Mathematics talks the language of a speculative science. It utters propositions which must be either true or false. Now a proposition is true or false depending on whether it is or is not in conformity with reality. Just as a practical science envisages a good to be achieved, which good functions as the criterion for right and wrong precepts in that science, so a speculative science considers some part or aspect of reality, which stands as the measure of truth and falsehood in that science. If there were no stars there would be no astronomy; and theology would be sheer nonsense if God did not exist. But what part of reality would destroy mathematics by being eliminated? What does the mathematician talk about? Is the object of mathematics a creature or a creator? Is it a substance or an accident? Is it something actual or merely potential? Is it changing or changeless? Temporal or eternal? Material or spiritual? Tangible or intangible? If one were to compose an inventory of all the subsisting realities of the whole universe, including God, the angels, men, animals, plants and minerals, would the objects of mathematics be on this list?

>> No.11163646

>>11163637
Am I asking too many questions? Well, here are a few answers whose reasons will either be supplied later, or be left to the reader to discover for himself. Mathematics is a speculative science whose value can only be in the practical order. It has no speculative value, because it does not convey any essential knowledge about any subsisting reality. It is not contemplative knowledge and therefore not essentially good for man, because it occupies the intellect with objects which the will cannot love. It is knowledge which does not proceed from understanding nor does it resolve in wisdom. It does not proceed from understanding, because the mathematical expression of any reality, never conveys any understanding of it. It may however convey the means for the control of that reality. You are not one inch closer to the penetration of the mystery of light and color when you know the number of Angstroms in each of the colors of the spectrum; nor about the nature, cause, or purpose of gravity when you resolve its laws into mathematical formulas. And it does not resolve in wisdom, because neither is mathematics concerned with the First Cause, nor does it lead to the First Cause. The manner by which mathematics deals with its objects abstracts completely from any dependence upon God, and as a matter of fact, attributes to these objects a species of eternity and turns them into quasi divinities completely independent in themselves. This explains the autonomous nature of mathematics, according to which, left to itself, it never leads to anything non-mathematical. A mathematician might be led to think about God by an accidental non-mathematical reason, but never from the very needs of mathematics.

As for the object of mathematics, it is not a physical entity but a mental entity; it is not real but ideal. There is nowhere in the world, outside of the mind of a mathematician, a point without dimensions, a line without width or thickness, or a square root of minus one. But these fictions of the mind are founded on reality, and their foundation consists of the accident of quantity and its properties and relations. Arithmetic is founded on discontinuous quantities or multitudes; geometry on continuous quantities or magnitudes; while algebra is founded on abstract quantity considered generically, prescinding from whether it is number or magnitude and therefore potentially capable both of an arithmetical as well as of a geometrical interpretation. Other mathematical objects, more distantly removed from this real foundation of mathematics, are rooted in these simpler elements and in the relations which hold among them. Having experienced the three dimensions of bodies in space and having represented these three dimensions by the three variables of an algebraical equation, nothing prevents the mind from creating the fiction of a space corresponding to an algebraical equation of four variables – hence four-dimensional space.

>> No.11163650

>>11163646
But what do we know about this accident of quantity, on which is founded, proximately or remotely every object of mathematics? We learn from philosophy that quantity is an accident of material substances, and that in contrast with the accident of quality, quantity manifests the material and not the formal aspect of these substances. Therefore the real foundation of mathematics is found in the material aspect of material things. Further, an accident when conceived as an accident always brings you back to its substance; but in mathematics the accident of quantity is conceived as if it were a substance. Further, a material substance concretely considered, has a nature through which this substance moves to the attainment of an end, but the mathematician considers quantity as a substantialized material accident devoid of any principle of change and abstracted from any movement to attain an end. The concrete material substance manifests itself through its sensible qualities by means of which it is known, but the object of mathematics, without being a spiritual substance like an angel, prescinds from all sensible qualities and can be known only by the intellect and not by the senses. Hence we have the apparent paradox that while the only foundation for the mathematical object is the material aspect of material things, still mathematics represents its object such as matter could neither be nor be known. For matter is nothing but a principle of change, while mathematics prescinds from change; and matter can only be known through the senses while mathematics prescinds from sensibility.

The object of mathematics is therefore an accident parading as a substance, a material reality pretending to be immaterial, an ideal entity which poses for something real. At the basis of all these antinomies is the fact that mathematics arises only when an intellectual mind, directs the light of its spiritual intelligence, not for the purpose of contemplating being, but for the purpose of controlling potency. The mathematical object is the shadow that matter casts on spirit. For when spirit knows spirit, there is not even the foundation for mathematics; when material cognition (sensation) knows material things, the objects of mathematics cannot arise; even when a spiritual being knows matter contemplatively it understands a material substance through its form and its qualities. It is only when a spiritual being concerns itself with matter and for the purpose of sheer control that mathematics finally finds its grounds.

>> No.11163656

>>11163603
one consequence was already delegitimation of political scientism like dialectical materialism or systems based directly on racism.
another consequence should be religious revival. its more difficult to defend atheism theoretically after gödel.

>> No.11163658

>>11163650
But how about the truth in mathematics? If the objects of mathematics are mental entities (entia rationis) what is it that determines the truth or falsehood of a mathematical proposition? What reality stands as the measure to the judgment of the mind? In the classical branches, arithmetic and geometry, the foundation in reality was close enough to preclude any statements that are not justified by the real properties of multitudes and magnitudes. But as mathematics branches out and develops into newer mathematics, and higher mathematics, and purer mathematics, that control becomes less and less until finally the mind remains its own measure. Consistency and not conformity becomes the touchstone of validity.

Apart from mathematics, there used to be three other distinct types of knowledge: physical, logical, and ethical. All three led ultimately to God – the physical sciences under the aspect of Ultimate Cause; the logical sciences by way of the Prime Truth; and the ethical sciences by way of the Supreme Good. But in mathematics, the mind reigns supreme, lord of all it surveys. The mind finds in itself a sufficient cause for the kind of being the mathematical entity enjoys. It is the only ultimate measure for the truth of its judgments. It prescinds completely from the aspect of goodness. Of all the intellectual pursuits, mathematics alone does not lead to God.

It is like the web of a spider, it proceeds from the very substance of the spider and ends up being its own jail. It gets more involved and more intricate the more it is extended, and finally, when the web is intricate enough, the new threads do not have to measure up to any real independent distances of walls or furniture, for when the new-thrown thread fails to meet a point of support, it sticks on another thread of the same fabric.

From the spider of mathematics, may God deliver us.

* * * * *

>> No.11163660
File: 206 KB, 750x591, CcqGsY8UAAEr61y.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11163660

loving every laugh

>> No.11163668

>>11163604
underrated

>> No.11163669

>>11163622
>>11163633
>>11163637
>>11163646
>>11163650
>Being so butthurt about people not going to church anymore

>> No.11163688

We need to torture and then murder every single religious person in the world. And their families, preferably in front of them.

>> No.11163734

>>11163627
you're not reading carefully, nor generously
the metaphor used is 'reflection'
the form and function of mathematics--though 'rationalism' is the real subject here, not arithmetic--mirrors that of the social condition at large. it dominates our concerns, informs the way we are capable of conceiving ourselves and our world, as mere problems with logically deducible solutions. we must merely follow the course of reason to its natural conclusion, and there lies the answer to our conundrum.
the point being, this is folly. there is no solution to death. you may postpone the event, even indefinitely. but the end will come.
>>11163623
i don't know how to respond to this. the concern isn't one of self-expression--is that even what you want to call mass image-projection? where is the self amid all those nebulous ones and zeros pinging about servers and satellites set and spinning all over the world?
the earth is made a wasteland, but the wi-fi's still up. guess i'll binge new girl for the 15th time this year. mass extinction sure was worth this. the wonders of technology
>>11163656
i'm sorry, you'll have to explain, i don't see the connection between being unable to express the truth about the arithmetic of natural numbers and the failures of dialectical materialism or racialism.

>> No.11163741

>>11163734
>i don't know how to respond to this. the concern isn't one of self-expression--is that even what you want to call mass image-projection? where is the self amid all those nebulous ones and zeros pinging about servers and satellites set and spinning all over the world?
>the earth is made a wasteland, but the wi-fi's still up. guess i'll binge new girl for the 15th time this year. mass extinction sure was worth this. the wonders of technology
my god you're fucking insufferable, go kill yourself

>> No.11163766

The scientific mindset definitely seems to kill the capacity for metaphysical speculation. The great pioneers of mathematics also seem to be the great anti-metaphysical propagandists who have pushed the mechanistic absurdity of Netwonianism / Darwinism upon us. Even the old pagan MYTHS showed a more subtle inquiry into the nature of the universe than our modern scientists piling mathematical formula upon mathematical formula, seeking ever smaller waves/particles.

>> No.11163770

>>11163741
we're having a disagreement. this is okay, that's why we're here.

>> No.11163784

>>11163688
>>>/sci/
>>>/reddit/

>> No.11163799

>>11163770
no you fucking retard, this isn't ok at all. your half backed metaphors and depiction of anything you don't understand as a chtonic entity does nothing but polluting the noosphere. where the fuck is the content beside all the shallow posturing and performativity? you're a fucking robot

>> No.11163801

>>11163734
>i don't see the connection
the connection is formalism and numerisation. the theorems still hold for everything that can be coded

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del_numbering

>> No.11163802

>>11163734
>there is no solution to death. you may postpone the event, even indefinitely. but the end will come.
But don't you see that this is the whole point of mathematics and science? As humans the purpose of our civilization is cure death and become masters of time and fate. We are racing against our destruction to do this. Most people cannot fathom or take seriously the true cosmological aims of enlightenment.

>> No.11163816

>>11163802
God won't be please about this when I tell him desu

>> No.11163834

>>11163802
>As humans the purpose of our civilization is cure death and become masters of time and fate.

If that's the case, the only thing our "civilization" will produce is Frankenstein's Monster.

>> No.11163839

>>11163378
>let's revert to primitive forms of knowledge because its more conducive to healthy societies
How is this any different from religious thinking?

>> No.11163855

>>11163378
This is maybe the stupidest thing i've read in a long time. Literally just luddites justifying their inferior epistemology

>> No.11163863

>>11163799
what am i not understanding?
(and i was sparse on metaphor--there are literally little energy packets zipping about that are renderable into binary at their destination points, repackaged, and resent, all continuously. this is the internet, basically.)
>>11163802
yes, i understand perfectly well that this is the goal of these enterprises, math and science, as they have been determined thus far. and they will fail, and likely fail spectacularly.
i disagree that the civilization, properly understood, is complicit in this.
>>11163801
again, i'm failing to see the connection to dialectical materialism and racialism, which don't depend on mathematical formalism.

>> No.11163882

>>11163839
It's not about knowledge, at least not the mere factual knowledge you can record in an encyclopaedia. It's about first principles, the nature of reality, our relationship with the cosmos - this isn't something that can be solved or even approached with a calculator or a compass, and the more we put our trust in calculators and compasses as intellectual guides, the further we go astray from it.

>> No.11163889

>>11163882
remember when Plato proved god with math

>> No.11163893

>>11163863
>>11163882
sounds like you're just going to have to get used to the new world.

>> No.11163895

>>11163863
if you can imagine a word processor that only allows formulation of phrases compatible with dialectical materialism, it can be coded.

>> No.11163905

>>11163882
Science doesn't lead to a materialist conception of the universe; the failure of religion and philosophy to make metaphysical claims that aren't disproved by empirical evidence is what leads to materialism.

>> No.11163918

>>11163895
you could say the same thing for literally anything
a recipe for pound cake for instance
am i incapable of baking a pound cake because of this?
what about evolutionary biology?
i'm not trying to defend dialectical materialism; i was asking for an historical account of how incompleteness defeated the theory and practice of 'dialectical science'. how long did lysenkoism hold sway in the soviet union after the publication of the theorems?

>> No.11163946

>>11163918
you dont have the obligation to believe in a cake recipe, its not binding like the ideology of a totalitarian state. and obviously in an ideal world gödel would have ended the soviet union, but in real world there are other factors.
i think currently we still live in a world that has a net momentum from pre-gödel scientism and enlightenment optimism.

>> No.11163961

>>11163946
>you dont have the obligation to believe in a cake recipe
yes you do if the recipe is good and does what it says

you won't be "forced" to worship it or some shit, but that has nothing to do with mathematics or godel or anything really

>> No.11163979

>>11163961
ok, one cake recipe isnt "sufficiently expressive" to fall under gödel's theorems anyway. a better analogy would be a whole weltanschauung about the true art of baking.

>> No.11163990

>>11163905
>Disprove God with empirical evidence
lol that's cute

>> No.11164014

>>11163990
>all metaphysical claims relate to the existence of God
nice try

>> No.11164109

>>11164014
>metaphysical claims can be empirically tested

anon i...

>>11163802
>curing death

I can't believe grown ass men are actually banking on this. What a pitiful grasp of the human condition. I promise you suicide will be the Next Big Thing once eternal life starts getting boring. People will always want to go where they are not. I promise you they'll start pining for the good old days when people lived 70-80 short years but lived it with passion, beauty, and excitement, etc. Death is life's F5.

Screencap this.

>> No.11164122

>>11164109
>metaphysical claims don't encroach onto territory that can be empirically tested
>neuroscience and psychology can't tell us about aspects of the mind that were once thought to be metaphysical

>> No.11164128

>>11164122
yeah please tell me how to falsify competing theories of causation or the problem of universals, i'll wait

>> No.11164140

>>11164128
That's a problem inherent to metaphysics. Materialists don't have to care about it.

>> No.11164223

>>11164140
>materialists don't have to care about formulating a coherent account of causality or universals

hah

>> No.11164243

>>11164109
>I can't believe grown ass men are actually banking on this. What a pitiful grasp of the human condition. I promise you suicide will be the Next Big Thing once eternal life starts getting boring. People will always want to go where they are not. I promise you they'll start pining for the good old days when people lived 70-80 short years but lived it with passion, beauty, and excitement, etc. Death is life's F5.
In a society where death has been essentially cured, I think something like a deep sleep is more likely where you can turn your consciousness off for a long time and come back into a world completely new and different. Most people don't want to be gone forever, they just don't want to always be conscious. Suicidals should be shut down for a long while, woken up some centuries later and then reevaluate their decision.

>> No.11164249

>>11163656
>its more difficult to defend atheism theoretically after gödel
it isn’t.

>> No.11164252

>>11164223
You can form postulates, but anything concerning the unprovable is poetry, not knowledge.

>> No.11164259

>>11164252
Prove the validity of mathematics.

>> No.11164285

>>11164259
It doesn't matter that the axioms are ultimately unprovable. Mathematics is perceived as "good enough" by the fact that it functions and is useful in describing the material world. The math behind orbital mechanics work, which is an indication that it describes something close to objective

>> No.11164290

>>11164109
>dude people will kill themselves because it’s trendy lmao
more like the soiboi condition desu, they won’t be missed

>> No.11164304

>studying mathematics supports the alienation of Labor

I suppose all SOME philosophers would want us to do is just sit around and drop acid all day.

Listen faggot, the earliest philosophers you ever read understood the divine importance of mathematics, and many later ones as well.

Proclus, Aristotle, and Plato all understood rigorous mathematical principles.

Descartes was a mathematician.

Rousseau? His theories of political philosophy are derived from a geometric ratio of the population to the magistrate.

Mathematics literally helps improve society through economics and various other modern contrivances. But no one is stopping you from saying ‘ u can’t know nuffin’ like everyone else who doesn’t give a fuck about learning. Just don’t read Aristotle

>> No.11164371

>>11164285
>the only real knowledge is what is provable
>It doesn't matter that the axioms are ultimately unprovable

fuck off dude jesus christ

>> No.11164389

>>11164371
"Provable" is what functions. Only a pragmatic conception of knowledge makes sense. Metaphysics doesn't work in a similar way because many competing theories are equally tenable.

>> No.11164399

>>11164389
>implying knowledge of the fundamental principles of reality can't have practical benefits

>> No.11164405

>>11163378
Maybe hierarchy is a good thing, Teddy.

>> No.11164412

>>11163882
But this is still religious or pseudo-religious thinking.

>> No.11164417

>>11164412
no it isn't you fucking mongoloid

>> No.11164427

>>11164417
Yes it is. Such ideas are at direct odds with the material nature of the universe and marxist materialism.

>> No.11164440

>>11164427
>investigating the nature of reality should be beyond the purview of materialism

American universities were a mistake

>> No.11164455

>>11164440
>there are things that cannot be grasped by senses or sensory devices
>such things cannot be material in nature
>but it's totally in agreement with marxism guise

Heidegger was right that commies are the most religious people alive. It's probably why Adorno got so butthurt about him.

>> No.11164483
File: 40 KB, 657x527, 1507656000837.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11164483

>>11163378
I see similar sentiments in many Marxists and also non-Marxist postmodernists about how hierarchy permeates everything, even the language of our minds and our conception of mathematics. But why would hierarchy automatically be seen as something 'bad', or at least something that should be abolished?

>> No.11164505

>>11164483
All that proves is that hierarchal thinking is natural

>> No.11164521

>>11164505
I never said it proves that hierarchies are always 'good', but i do not see why such hierarchies are also automatically bad.

>> No.11164526

>>11163378
Based Adorno
Fuck Elon Musk fuck economic realism
Intuitive non-bifurcated Gaia computation when


(But really it seems silly to throw the baby out with the bathwater obviously mathematics has some merit and could be employed to better ends under a different scheme of reference *I *M* O*)

>> No.11164555
File: 186 KB, 307x315, 1515629890575.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11164555

>>11163378
>being so weak that a few little concepts utterly destroy your authentic relationship with reality
Pathetic.

>> No.11164687

>>11163573
>t. math fetishist bugman who wishes he was anally raped to death by a big, thick equation

>> No.11164862

>>11164521
i think it's less a question of the goodness or badness of hierarchy itself and more the arbitrariness and self-justifying structure of bad hierarchies. like the meritocracy, which prides itself on professional qualifications but inevitably (as in the case of the imperial chinese civil service) degenerates into an endless pursuit of credentials themselves as a means to power. there's nothing bad about a hierarchy that's voluntarily assumed among equals, it's when the hierarchy perpetuates itself at the expense of its purpose that you have a problem

>> No.11164894

>>11163646
Based aristotelian christfag, how will STEMtards ever recover!?

>> No.11165036

>>11163802
You can't really cure death, given that the universe, according to science, will eventually disappear :^)

>> No.11165063

the enlightenment was a mistake

>> No.11165106

>>11165036
That's precisely the task of science, to stop that from happening.

>> No.11165118

>>11165106
>being this deluded
>literally secularized messianism

Stop.

>> No.11165133

>>11163623
It's almost like Godel reached a philosophical conclusion about the nature of mathematics (really first-order systems powerful enough to express arithmetic, I don't know why you're bringing science into this).

>> No.11165423

>>11165118
>not understanding or realizing the myths of your own culture
Observe more.

>> No.11165444

>>11163378
Ironically, Heidegger did

>> No.11165467

>>11163734
yikes