/lit/ - Literature

Autists can't into metaphysics because it requires higher-order intuitive thought that baffles their petty rationalist brains.

We don't know. Bertrand Russell was by far the most retarded '''''philosopher'''''' to ever exist and his debate on the nature of a God is embarrassing.

If he were here alive today I would look at him straight in the face and ask him to flip through a copy of Aristotle's Metaphysics and tell me mathematics is not present.

>Analytic philosopher: Hey man. I can prove that all human agents should objectively make a certain moral decision in a given context. I can also prove that infinite other worlds exist for every possible logical outcome of all situations.

>Non-retard: Wait.. Wait, what? What do you mean by any of these terms? What do you mean by "prove," or "objectively?"

>Analytic philosopher: You fucking metaphysician! Keep your foundationalist voodoo away from me you fucking linguistic navel-gazing hippie! You can't scare me, Thomas Kuhn!

Did he save his teacher of forsake him

>>11034188
Seriously, imagine spending your whole life studying mathematics and running around circular loops of logic, and then being asked to contemplate being qua being or the relationship between mind and reality. Too much mathematics (especially modern) deteriorates the brain.

>>11034192
Non-retards aka continental riddlers

>>11034199
Nonsense. Study higher levels of mathematics, it isn't that bad. Read books on mathematics while you read books on metaphysics. It is exhilarating. Plus, at some points, having a good knowledge of mathematics helps your understanding of all other fields, including philosophy and economics.

>>11034199
>mathematics (especially modern) deteriorates the brain.
from: philosophlet

>>11034189
>>11034188
fuckin brainlit russl

Are analytical philosophers sub-Kantian robots who can't transcend their self-referential logic/word games because the (noumenal) world is presupposed to be unknowable?

>>11034220
>>11034220
Russell in the quote appears, oddly enough, to be accusing the metaphysicians of being this

what a fuckin dummy

>be humanitiesfag
>constantly encounter the outer fringes of maths in a hundred different branches of philosophy, from analytics to metaphysics
>be amazed by the mystical potential of maths being the language of reality itself
>be slightly in awe of STEMfags and assume they tap into this majesty through hard work, and humanitiesfags like me are missing out
>start learning maths
>it's fucking tough
>get to the point where I can just barely understand higher order university-level stuff
>eagerly start talking to esteemed, visionary, world-famous mathematicians at my university
>mfw I realize they are all complete, intuitive materialists in their outlook
>mfw they don't grasp an iota of the mystical or metaphysical aspects of higher maths
>mfw they don't even really understand what the concreteness of mathematical laws imply, and spend most of their time playing at meaningless quantitative number puzzles
>mfw even professional scientists are childlike retards who are genuinely content with puerile, reductionist accounts of the nature of reality
>mfw the vast majority of high level STEM people are ignorant of other branches of their own field, let alone other fields or disciplines altogether
>mfw the luminaries of STEM are the biggest reservoir of literally autistic toy collectors in the world
>mfw the vast majority are just average dumb normalfags aside from their single hyper-focused academic specialty
>mfw they don't read books (at all)
>mfw it is actually staggering how stupid they are in every single respect other than knowing one specific kind of maths really well
>mfw totally disillusioned
>mfw realising after all that work that maths isn't even the language of reality but a closed and self-referential puzzlebox for autistic fucking faggots

>>11034189
“I conclude that the Aristotelian doctrines with which we have been concerned in this chapter are wholly false, with the exception of the formal theory of the syllogism, which is unimportant. Any person in the present day who wishes to learn logic will be wasting his time if he reads Aristotle or any of his disciples.”

>>11034203
Nah, you don't need any more mathematics than Euclid. Aristotle correctly categorised mathematics: it is the study of quantity, which is one of the nine categories of accidental being. Mathematics has nothing at all to say about substantial being, but because of its seeming proven-ness it bamboozles people's minds. Studying number/quantity is not any higher than the study of colour or sound, but for some reason mathematicians think they possess a higher science than painters and musicians (they don't).

>>11034233
It's quite useful for its practical applications, but I do find the puzzles interesting as well.

If it's not for you, it's not for you. For instance, maybe you should give pic related a try? It's a collection of indeterminate/determinate equations. But some are just vaguely determinate, as in the setting of the problem doesn't really explicitly say it, but it's implied. These sorts of things are derived from thinking about the actual problem itself. In fact, the most fascinating part about these problems are not the solutions, but the method.

Think about economics, or physics, also. These fields benefit greatly from hyperspace analysis whose properties are understood only through partial derivatives.

>>11034253
Sorry, here's the pic.

>>11034246
Why stop at Euclid? Euclid is important, very impressive book to read and understand, but there are other mathematicians out there you should read just to understand things.

Plato's Timaeus, Nicomachus' Introduction to Arithmetic, pic related, and Pappus' Collection, among others are all important mathematical exercises to read. If you think you can progress without understanding mathematics, you're wrong.

Look at Descartes, for instance, he was heavily absorbed with mathematics and the nature of being at the same time.

>>11034233

>>11034262
Elements, is what I was talking about of course. Never read Data. Maybe I might come back and read it one day.

>>11034246

>>11034341
filename made me legit lol

>>11034182
was he the Bill Nye the Science Guy of philosophy?

>>11034233
i'm STEMfag in college and I approved this post. the reason being that mathematics and general science, particularly in modern school are entirely separate from philosophy.

when you have no foundation in philosophy, you will just ended up adapting whatever that being fed, and continue your day play with your puzzles.

not all but most STEMfag are philistine and verily limited in term of their world view and philosophy because the lack of exposure from any different ideals.

they do seek 'life' and 'meaning' through commercial films, music, instagram quote, entry level literature, and that's about it.

>>11034609
that's sad

>>11034233
To paraphrase Nietzsche: many a great scientist posseses a mediocre soul and many a mediocre artist possesses a great soul.

>>11034197
He metaphorically beat him up like that stupid kid that could't math

>>11034199
reminder that there are no philosophers worth reading who didn't extensively study mathematics.

>>11035012
who do you think is worth reading, btw. give recs

>>11034233
yup, this is about right.
My father is exactly what you explained. My mother cares a lot for philosophy and nature. So while I'm an engineer now (dolla dolla billz), I can't identify with a vast majority of them because I can't relate to them and their autistic materialistic gaming and thoughtlessness.

I swear to god, if one of them catches me reading, or talking about gardening, they look at me like I'm an alien.
Fuck STEM specific niggers.

>>11034233
Hmmm I encounter mathematics through learning logic and philosophy....I guess it makes more sense rather than having a bunch of numbers being thrown at you without logical explanation

This makes me more interested in maths having left school

>>11034197
He absolutely raped him

>>11034233
I agree wholeheartedly 'cause of my own experiences, but
>maths
It's Mathematics or Math. Not the lazy, unholy union of the two. So typical of the English to ruin fucking English and claim the high-ground "Because it's English".
You should not take a word that is plural on its own and then make it a contraction, then tack the "s" back on. You don't do this with other words necessarily. You're creating a new word and not contracting anymore. Maths, I suppose, is just as valid as math, if you were so inclined to "new-speak" it up; but what the true answer is, is spell out Mathematics, who cares if you're pretentious besides yourself If you know you are right and can defend your points. I'm being just as quirky without sounding like my mouff is stuffed wiff chips m8. Cheers
t.American-Irish, don't touch my potatoes I need them on Fridays. Also, our accent is more pure to an extent than that posh sounding trash you invented to sound as though we're better than everyone.
>mfw "maths"

>>11035354
>I forgot some quotes near the end, I'm not Mozart or a spider. I swear on me mums lyfe.

>>11034246
Aristotle thought Math couldn't describe motion. Just think about that for a second.

>>11035354
>2018
>not enjoying maths

>>11035371
Did Aristotle say that? Motion equates to what I essentially understand as natural, artistic, or automatic. These can be motions of ideas or motions of physical things. I believe the motion of an idea is mathematical, if the idea is mathematics, wouldn't you? All primary beings derive ideas from material things, so perhaps Aristotle believed the inverse, that material things define the primary beings themselves, and the forms therein.

>>11035399
Smell my gooch.

>>11035418
No ty

>>11035426
Do it

Brainlet Russel

>>11035354
Based Irish American, you tell those limey fucks

>>11034188
>higher-order intuitive thought
keep telling yourself that

>>11034246
>>11035371
>>11035399
Ancient Greek mathematics is far removed from modern mathematics
Aristotle thinking something doesn't mean anything.
'Motion' is meaningless without rigourous defining it.

>>11035450
Thanks, brother Mick. All for the glory of Erie, U.S. of A!

>>11034199
The problem isn't mathematics. It's thinking that mathematics is the only answer to any question that is the problem

>>11035457
>Ancient Greek mathematics is far removed from modern mathematics
Absolutely not, only some of it is. Also, that doesn't mean anything because modern =/= better, even with mathematics.

>Aristotle thinking something doesn't mean anything.
With regard to mathematics? If so, see above. If in general, no. Just no.


>'Motion' is meaningless without rigourous defining it.
Seems like you're missing a word here. 'Proofs' maybe? Also, anything is meaningless unless you define it, it just depends on how exactly you define it. When we're dealing with Aristotle, he defines everything rigorously indeed. Perhaps you should read one of his books.

>>11035457
>Now the mathematician, though he too treats of these things, nevertheless does not treat of them as the limits of a physical body; nor does he consider the attributes indicated as the attributes of such bodies. That is why he separates them; for in thought they are separable from motion, and it makes no difference, nor does any falsity result, if they are separated. The holders of the theory of Forms do the same, though they are not aware of it; for they separate the objects of physics, which are less separable than those of mathematics. This becomes plain if one tries to state in each of the two cases the definitions of the things and of their attributes. "Odd" and "even," "straight" and "curved," and likewise "number," "line," and "figure," do not involve motion; not so "flesh" and "bone" and "man" - these are defined like "snub nose," not like "curved."
The idea of math being used to describe motion, I don't know who started it, but it wasn't possible to make it a reality until Galileo and even then it took full form with the development of analytic geometry. Since objects move in curves, it took a mathematical development that allowed for curves to be understood in terms of algebraic equations to make motion fully mathematical.

This is just one way in which "reading Euclid and forgetting about everything else" falls short not only mathematically but philosophically.

>>11034182
Bertrand Russell seems to have spent hours, perhaps years, willfully misunderstanding metaphysics and theology.

Par for the modernist course I guess. Fortunately, his works are unequaled for unpopularity

>>11035496
>objects move in curves
Hmmm sweetie, you do know that things can move in a straight line, right?

>>11034182
>'tis but
>it is but
"tis" is retarded in general, but his use is plain braindead fuckery.

>>11035496
>it took a mathematical development that allowed for curves to be understood in terms of algebraic equations to make motion fully mathematical.
This does not prove Aristotle wrong, he is still not defining motion in terms of mathematics, he is defining mathematics in terms of motion.

See
>>11035399

I agree with everything you said except that the ideas themselves can be generated through mathematics, just no physical bodies can be transformed directly through mathematics, but through a form (application of mathematics to the material world).

>This is just one way in which "reading Euclid and forgetting about everything else" falls short not only mathematically but philosophically.
I agree with this, though again Euclid's Elements is almost unparalleled. I have yet to find anything after Elements that matches its complexity and artistic nature.

>>11034197
>Did he save his teacher of forsake him

>>11034246
>Aristotle correctly categorised mathematics: it is the study of quantity
That doesn't even accurately describe Euclid.

>>11034368
Hey, that's where Jordan Peterson lives

>>11034262
>If you think you can progress without understanding mathematics, you're wrong.
That's the courage I need to keep reading this College Physics textbook. 1961 publication I received as a gift from a teacher for graduation.

>>11035074
>(dolla dolla billz)
>I can't relate to them and their autistic materialistic gaming and thoughtlessness
Throw some money their way, if that's all you guys have in common there down at EnginCo. I'm sure they'll relate to whatever you'd want to talk about with them after that.
t.Nurseryman who doesn't have to justify his profession by dollar signs.

>>11035439
He said no ty, respect that, you swine.

>>11035658
Cool, what about those other things I listed, pseud.

>>11035686
We all start somewhere, nerd.
Was Dick and Jane too advanced for your brain when you were only 2?

Russell was a cuck who got his wife impregnated by a bull not just once but twice.

Would you care about any "philosophy" written by a willfull cuck? I sure wouldn't.

>>11035730
I knew I heard his name somewhere before

>>11034593
Dude look at his face. Bill Nye is his reincarnation

>>11034593
>>11035749
I thought the same thing, and have come to the meta-conclusion that
clearly, we just live in the same generation over and over with new experiences and this claim is indisputable because you can't disprove it either.
Also, Russell's use of "'tis" in a demeaning manner makes him just as insufferable, as though above the rest of us pigs.

>>11035719
I guess so. Eventually you'll be able to read Arithmetica. Just gotta work your way up champ, that's all.

>>11035787
ty for more encouraging words, brother.

>>11035515
A straight line is a curve.

>>11036633
That's dumb.

Brainlet Russell

>>11034233
>be amazed by the mystical potential of maths being the language of reality itself
>Mathematical realism

>>11034182
>taking metaphysics seriously after Kant and Heidegger

>>11036878
Oh you..

>>11036878
Word

>>11035522
sure is heheh

>>11035780
Cloud Atlas theory of being

>>11034192
Doesn't modal logic have an implicit metaphysical dimension? Kripke brings Humean epistemology to the fore in N&N ("there are necessary a posteriori truths")