/lit/ - Literature

>>16092030
whats the best text to start with? i made a thread about this a week or two ago but it was mostly just me shitposting until it died. it seems like there's been a bunch of new important additions to the "gnostic canon" in the past 15 years, so a lot of the books are somewhat out-of-date?

is the demiurge
>lovecraftian

>>15751336
>We literally cannot function, as human beings, if we do not assume certain things, certain axioms, are true.
>it leads to language games
Sure but, pardon my edge here, you're conflating the world of logic with the actual world we live in. Physics has no formal axioms. Nothing is assumed to be true. In general terms, when someone says,
>what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence
they aren't referring to someone positing Zerkel-Fraenkel set theory. They're referring to some theist making a totally arbitrary set of assumptions about the real world, totally opaque to reality, which could have been served in any of an infinite number of different ways to the same exact end. And regardless, even if opaqueness was a requirement for reality ("to see through everything is the same as seeing nothing"), that does not mean that anything goes.

>During the Renaissance, geometry was partly driven by artistic creation, especially painting: the techniques developed to project a three-dimensional object onto a two dimensional plane, and the theory of perspective, led to what we know today as projective geometry. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the rise of modern science in Europe, as exemplified by the work of Kepler, Galileo, and Newton, can be characterised as a spirit of geometrisation. In a 1953 remark that has often been quoted by Needham among many others, Albert Einstein observed that

>The development of Western science is based on two great achievements: the invention of the formal logical system (in Euclidean geometry) by the Greek philosophers, and the discovery of the possibility to find out causal relationships by systematic experiment (Renaissance). In my opinion one has not to be astonished that the Chinese sages have not made these steps. The astonishing thing is that these discoveries were made at all.

>Einstein, was the discovery of causal relations through experimentation. This search for causal regularities and ‘laws of nature’ is a very specific form of philosophising about nature,one that moves from concrete experiences to abstract models. In relation to Chinese thought, Needham posed a very relevant question here: Can this emergence of the concept of laws of nature in Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth century be attributed specifically to scientific and technological developments? Catherine Chevalley answers in the affirmative by pointing out three key scientific developments in Europe during this period: (1) the geometrisation of vision (Kepler); (2) the geometrisation of movement (Galileo); and (3) the codification of the conditions of the experiment (Boyle, Newton). In each of these cases, geometry plays a crucial role in so far as it allows for a detachment of scientific knowledge from everyday experience.

>In the first instance, Kepler mobilised the Plotinian Understanding of light as emanation against Aristotle’s substantialist definition, and showed that the formation of images on the retina involves a complicated process which follows geometrical rules (i.e. diffraction and the geometrical deformation of inverted images). Similarly, Galileo’s geometrisation of the laws of movement, which superseded the Aristotelian concept of change (metabole) as modification of substance and accidents (generation or corruption), proceeded by considering an ideal environment of the void, where falling objects of different masses will acquire the same speed, against the intuitive belief that an object with larger mass will fall at a higher speed.

>>11864269
if you like outer-fringe ultra-dark philosophy stuff amy's the jam

https://vastabrupt.com/2018/02/02/the-revolving-door-and-the-straight-labyrinth-part-0/