/lit/ - Literature

>>12847971
Reading things doesn’t mean you are simply reading the ‘ideas’ of others you fucking moron. Go back to /v/ or some other corner of this site where you belong.

Sometimes you read about things actually are.

>>12724609
>The Islamic Golden Age was a lie
Not at all. Alhazen was very intelligent

>spend all afternoon reading propositions
>there are some major translation errors obviously occurring from someone who has no clue what’s going on mathematically.

He was translating the stuff with Socrates and the Metaphysics of vision just fine, it’s always when it comes to math they fuck up.

>reading modern mathematics
Pseuds

Last read :
The Categories by Aristotle

Currently reading (technically, although some of these haven’t been read for weeks):
Ibn Al-Haytham - The Optics
Von Neumann & Morgenstern- Theory of Games and Economic Behavior
Ptolemy - The Almagest
Alexis De Tocqueville - Democracy In America
Aristotle - On Interpretation

Next:
Ibn Al- Haytham - Completion of the Conics
Joseph Schumpeter - Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy
Ibn Al- Haytham - Configuration of the World
Jeremy Bentham - An Introduction into the Principles of Morals and Legislation
Aristotle - Prior Analytics

I’ll be honest with you, the theorematical explanations involved in The Optics is just plain fascinating. I have been surprised with mathematics this past year. I would never have thought myself a mathematician, but the entire language and ideas surrounding the whole field have interested me greatly. I see it as an exercise which if you put more work into, you get indefinite rewards. I see it as very expressive of very psychological ideas at times (albeit there are some very moral limitations in that direction). I don’t think of image when I read books but I do know that people looked down at me at work when they saw me reading mathematics, or maybe up. I think it’s underrated and gets a bad rap.

But man, is Alhazen not just the hardest shit in the world to grasp. I’m taking some time off from life in general to try and understand Proposition 25 in Book V for the final Quod Erat Faciendum for the theorematical explanation of the convex spherical mirrors. That proposition is about 5 pages long! And it doesn’t use the synthetical method like some of Alhazen’s other works. Were talking a straight 5 pages of pure synthetical geometric reasoning which uses the previous QEFs that reference Euclid AND Apollonius (Alhazen is a fun one for sure).

So yeah I’ve been taking days on pages recently because of this.

>>12239789
;_;

I’ve been at work a lot so I’ve only had one day to read recently, but I only got through two of the propositions in this book.

But what I just said applies to most literature I read. A lot of philosophy is like that as well.

Is this what is thought of as deep? I hardly see any mathematical, deeply philosophical, or even remotely historically philologically interesting material being discussed on /lit/, it is just a constant influx of anime bullshit and stoner nonsense. I wish there was another place to discuss literature. I’m reading Alhazen’s Optics

Alhazen’s Optics has a particular discussion of the properties of beauty (and ugliness) in an object.

It’s only in one part though, book three

Some things are better explained through mathematics

Is mathematics better at describing concepts than language?

I mean, mathematics transcends time and syntactical differences between time periods/language anyway so it’s incredibly good at conveying concepts to people not within their cultural area if not translated well.

For instance, I owe much more to understanding the synthetical method to Alhazen than to Pappus, who explains the concept in his Collection.

Reason being, because with Alhazen I can see the process in action.

I’ve got a couple of examples to support my case before you shitheads start eating this up.

1) Ibn Al-Haytham’s Optics is a perfect example. His explanation of how optical reflections and the plane of reflection, when expressed verbally, are watery at best. But the theorematical explanation is astoundingly clear and concise.

2) Take Economics for example. The theory of a quantifiable utility, whether linear or not, has fueled many different theories relating to mathematics. Léon Walras and Carl Menger both expounded identical theories. Whereas Menger’s conception of marginality was surface level at best, Walras was unbelievably rigorous and more in-depth. I really got a lot more about marginal utility because of Walras than Menger. And then there is the idea of indifference curves or Game Theory. How can you possibly say these ideas could be explained through any other Avenue than mathematics?

Just purchased Book VI of The Optics

Reading this right now

I do read. Very often. Usually very dense nonfiction and things of that nature, I can interpret and understand a lot of different stuff.

I read pic related today. At its best it reads like Aristotle’s Metaphysics.

>>11979840
This book influenced the whole of European philosophers/scientists, including Descartes

I’m preparing to read Descartes but I still have to finish some preliminary stuff as well. I’m reading the Optics by Ibn Al-Haytham rn. Is it advocated to learn the history, language, and culture of France at the time to truly understand Descartes

Has anyone been even remotely interested in reading Alhacen’s Optics? I’m about to read all five books that are translated from the Latin version.

It is a widely influential book that pioneered and developed the field of Optics, as understood today, and went against the theory as told by thinkers such as Euclid.

>>11874478

I just bought this, what am I in for?

About to read this shit niggas what am I in for?