/lit/ - Literature

my diary desu

>>14561736
Ok, so here's what I think:
>Newton - Principia, Opticks and Theory of Fluxions
this is just here to make your list seem more classical/distinguished. don't get bogged down in a circle-jerk of primary sources: modern textbooks on physics and calculus are much better and more efficient choices than this
>Archimedes, Euler
same as above, but if you really think these need to be here then I guess go for it
>Mill - Science of Logic and Principles of Political Economy
read these before Hegel, not after
>others
probably totally legit, but I haven't read all of them. as far as what you're missing:
>Fukuyama - Our Posthuman Future
good supplementary reading about how modern socialization relies on calculability, even if it isn't quite in the spirit of everything else here
>Michalewicz & Fogel -- How To Solve It: Modern Heuristics
a primer for how human perception deals with quantification & mathematical questions. good for cultivating clear thought as a social scientist
>Harvey -- A Companion To Marx's Capital
>Eagleton -- Why Marx Was Right
last one might be too facile to qualify, but is good to read

>>14561736
Grothendieck.

>>14561736
Mathematical Mysticism:
Iamblichus - Theology of Arithmetic
Plotinus - The Enneads
Jewish Number Mysticism, Philo / Kabbalah
Christian Number Mysticism - Clement of Alexandria, Origen

Laws of Chaos - Emmanuel Farjoun, Moshe Machover

>>14561736
>I've dubbed Mathematical Marxism
What does it mean?

>>14562180
Adopting this mystical approach to mathematics and combining it with set theory and dialectical materialism will render your new philosophy an esoteric and opaque flavor only rivaled by Hegelian Hermeticism. Actually OP, I may adopt this myself.

>>14562150
>>Newton - Principia, Opticks and Theory of Fluxions
But is it not important to learn the lineage of the knowledge that the future righters are refering too in their writings? Isnt the point of it for progression in reading? Modern standard science should be a accompanying piece.

For instance, most people do not dirrectly agree with most of the republic, but it is an important starting point nontheless for what it brings up, and maybe moreso, because future writers explicitly or implicitly refer to it, either refuting, agreeing, or building upon certain points.

>>14562181
Nice deep cut! I studied (math) under Moshe Machover - very smart guy. Marxian Econophysics is the future.

>>14562203
I get where you're coming from. I think I've misunderstood what your aims are. If you're trying to be as textually rigorous in your study of maths as you are in your study of philosophy, then by all means read the primary sources. In fact, that's probably how Marx and co. would've studied mathematics, too.

Fuck. I think this ideology is the next big thing, anon!

>>14562288
Thank u. Probably not a new idea though. Ive always held that if we maintain that everything is likely logical, we should not do away with "Superfluous" older works, since they were a process in that development of current logic. its Chronological snoobery to skip developmental steps and causes unsubstantiated certanty in current knowledge, but also we should not be nostalgic about it. Just treat them as "Is" instead of "aughts".

Applying content to context.

This IS the current state of affairs now, but that is based on what IS 20 years ago. Things are not right and wrong, just what is the consensus at this time. once you know the history of IS you can better understand the trajectory of thought and create a nuanced "aught" or opinion.

DESU I havent even gotten to Marx yet, because I thought it was important to study chronologically. Still in early 1700's.

This autistic tendency on my part is probably why I became more conservitive, not for petty presservation of what was, but to have a nuanced understanding of why things are instead of reacting against things that are more immediately unpalatable.

>>14562203
>But is it not important to learn the lineage of the knowledge that the future righters are refering too in their writings?
no, literally not at all

>>14562659
I do the same thing, actually. Just not in math and science.

>>14562186
Analysis based social science

>>14561736
blocks your path

keep us posted, MathMarx bro

>>14563635
so literally a statistician?

>>14561736
>Mathematical
>Marxism

I think capping off your studies with a contemporary economics text, which holistically considers neoclassical, heterodox, and marxist economics might be worth your time. There's a lecture series on YouTube by the author for it too.

>>14563974
Babby tier. Try this instead OP: https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Science+of+Logic

>>14564011
Embryo teier. Try this instead: ttps://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Logic+of+Science

>>14561736
>no Apollonius of Perga
>no Bonaventura Cavalieri
>no Gottfried Leibniz
>no Kurt Goedel

Not gonna make it.

>>14564607
This.

Also, I think Marxism is a really stupid thing to be working towards, but this seems like a fun reading list.

You’ll find out that there aren’t ‘mathematical’ types of people and that this understanding is generally developed from prolonged exposure to pure logic or synthetic geometry. If you understand Euclids last few books and Archimedes’ works on spheroids, all the power to you. Those are still some of the harder mathematical works I’ve read :3

>>14564662
>You’ll find out that there aren’t ‘mathematical’ types of people and that this understanding is generally developed from prolonged exposure to pure logic or synthetic geometry.
Synthetic geometry is a branch of mathematics (one of the oldest) and logic is usually studied in a fairly mathematical way nowadays in the form of symbolic logic. So it has to do with mathematics, at the end of the day.

>If you understand Euclids last few books and Archimedes’ works on spheroids, all the power to you. Those are still some of the harder mathematical works I’ve read
The point of classical analysis has been to make things easier rather than harder. That was also the point of abstract algebra at the beginning, but things got out of hand real fast. And notwithstanding the achievements of ancient Greek geometry, the ancient Greeks' standards of rigor wouldn't stand up to scrutiny nowadays.