/lit/ - Literature

Parmenides

>>18808648
shut the fuck up faggot

>>18808965
>>18808648

>>18808342
sauce?

>>18808335
I think philosophy will eventually be grouped with Bacon, Locke, and Decartes, i.e. post scholastic philosophy to the early 20th century as its own distinct period.

The collapse of Euclid's postulates, noneuclidean geometries, the Incompleteness theorem, the destruction of the law of the excluded middle, quantum mechanics and the end of the Newtonian dream of a unified theory of everything (Spencer, positivism), the expansion of semiotics and recognition that signs only point to signs ("there is nothing outside the text") and the Hard Problem growing worse even as neuroscience exploded with findings, and non-locality now seemingly a reality in physics all points to the need for a paradigm shift.

Ancient philosophy had Plato and Aristotle. Modern had Kant and Hegel. Who knows how long we might wait for a new pair.

Honestly, I think one thing sciences need is to fully absorb Kant. To realize that the way we understand things is filtered through innate faculties. This is borne out by modern neuroscience. Semiotics also shows us how language mediates comprehension. Most importantly, evidence that only a tiny fraction of the brains activity makes it to conciousness (38 petroflops vs 50 bits), but that complex thought seemingly occurs subconsciously (Einstein discovering relativity while watching painters, huge mathematical breakthroughs while day dreaming, the fact that the visual cortex uses calculus to process and create sight). These all need to be incorporated into the way we think of epistemology and experience.

Instead, we generally acknowledge all these things, hand wave them, and continue on with positivism because it is useful.

I think in the future we will see correspondence epistemology die, pragmatism be seen as a useful illusion, and a sort of coherence model of truth in the mold of Hegel take hold. Probably part of the problem is that modern thought still hasn't fully digested Hegel.

>>18809049
>the visual cortex uses calculus to process and create sight
source? Just curious

>>18809070
Think I've seen it a few places, but the Great Courses Mind Body Philosophy is one. Excellent lecture series btw, best I've heard.

so... nihilism or irony them?

How cope?

>>18810841
?

>>18809070
The guy has no idea what he is talking about.
source: I'm a math grad student

>>18809049
>Who knows how long we might wait for a new pair.
Husserl and Heidegger, duh.

>>18809049
Don't worry anon, I'll be the next Plato. You're welcome

>>18810841
He is criticizing skepticism here.

>>18809049
>The collapse of Euclid's postulates
Literally never happened.
>noneuclidean geometries
>the Incompleteness theorem
Things that you definitely don't understand.
>the destruction of the law of the excluded middle
Literally never happened.
>quantum mechanics and the end of the Newtonian dream of a unified theory of everything
Since when has the dream of a unified theory of everything died? and what does it have to do with Quantum Mechanics?
>the expansion of semiotics and recognition that signs only point to signs ("there is nothing outside the text")
Please shut the fuck up.
>the Hard Problem growing worse even as neuroscience exploded with findings
It's getting worse?
>and non-locality now seemingly a reality in physics
This is a Quantum meme and has literally no significance to anything that matters. You have failed to address other interpretations like super-determinism btw.
>all points to the need for a paradigm shift.
What? Why?
I honestly can't even finish reading this post.
Jesus Christ, just avoid talking about things you don't understand faggot pseud.

>>18809049
cringe

>>18808335
Retroactively refuted by Parmenides.

>>18811178
Give arguments fucking pseud.

>>18809005
Books that make you want to suck dick?

>>18811553
>Give arguments fucking pseud.
Prove your statements and I'll be happy to faggot.

>>18809049
>Einstein discovering relativity while watching painters
I absolutely love midwit tier bullshit like this

>>18808335
>certainty doesn't exist in any shape or form
>im CERTAIN there is no understanding
>I'm CERTAIN there is nothing to understand
>I'm CERTAIN that the conclusion is skepticism
>im in morning for the passing of rational knowledge that doesn't exist
>by using rational knowledge of skepticism to prove that id doesn't exist to exist lol
ok retard

>>18811826
Read the OP faggot. Pretend you're arguing with Whitehead: what are your arguments against what he's said?

>>18812067
He is critical of skepticism.

>>18811178
Typical /lit/ shit post corresponding to every effort post. Has absolutely no substance or demonstration that it understands the concepts it is talking about but takes the tone of an absolute genius and authority.

You do realize most of this see through the airs and you seem pathetic, right?

>>18811880
This is how Einstein described the event himself, no? Bakker did an entire piece on how tons of mathematical discoveries occur "out of the blue."

>>18811178
Based faggot exposer. Anon has no response.

>>18811178
Pretty sure he is referring to the unsound nature of Euclid's argument, which was discovered in the early 20th century and did make a huge splash as did new geometries (Through the Looking Glass is based on this period).

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/roots-of-unity/whate28099s-the-deal-with-euclide28099s-fourth-postulate/

Definetly happened. Not super relevant unless you're into math.

Law of the excluded middle had been largely replaced by negation as faliure. Logic definitely did undergo a paradigm shift last century.

As for Derrida, not my cup of tea but I also haven't seen anyone prove him wrong.

>>18813957
How does one respond to no arguments.

>Euclid's 4th weren't shown to be unsound, never happened
But it did.
>Excluded middle wasn't largely replaced
But it had been.

Aside from getting key facts wrong, Anon basically has a bunch of invective. Pretty par for /lit/.

So you have one Anon making hyperbolically dumb claims about destruction and collapse, when really it's more nuanced, countered by even greater retardation on the other. Why do I come here?

>>18808335
Refuted retroactively by Parmenides (PBUH)

>>18813964
>Pretty sure he is referring to the unsound nature of Euclid's argument, which was discovered in the early 20th century and did make a huge splash as did new geometries
That's not the failure of anything. It just means that there are alternative geometries that are internally consistent. Nothing collapsed. We discovered more cool math.

>Law of the excluded middle had been largely replaced by negation as faliure. Logic definitely did undergo a paradigm shift last century.
Maybe in philosophy. Not in math, i.e. the thing that actually leads to irl predictions and technology. I'm not into philosophy, so I have to ask. In what way is LEM is a failure, besides autistic philosophers debating about nothing? How does it affect the real world in any way?

>>18813986
See above.

I think humanities fags should stay in their lane. You don't see me arguing Hegel or Nietzsche or whatever. It might seem like >>18811178 is not providing arguments, but there's nothing to argue about, he's just calling out schizo rambling. None of you fuckers know math.

>>18814193
Historians of physics and mathematics, as well as contemporary mathematicians and physicists certainly thought they were in a crisis, probably on the same scale as the replication crisis for social sciences today.

Evans' had a good chapter on this in the Pursuit of Power. There was a contemporary feeling they everything was about to be explained, that humanity was on the cusp of a unified theory of all things and exponential growth. That bit the dust after WWI, and it was a combination of realizing how far knowledge was from being complete, as well as the death of the old political order. TTC has a decent ish coverage of the era.

Also, dismissing all philosophical logic as meaningless probably falls into the category of not staying in your lane.

>>18808335
Yes.

>As to mathematical truths, we should be still less inclined to consider anyone a geometer who had got Euclid’s theorems by heart (auswendig) without knowing the proofs, without, if we may say so by way of contrast, getting them into his head (inwendig). Similarly, if anyone came to know by measuring many right-angled triangles that their sides are related in the way everybody knows, we should regard knowledge so obtained as unsatisfactory. All the same, while proof is essential in the case of mathematical knowledge, it still does not have the significance and nature of being a moment in the result itself; the proof is over when we get the result, and has disappeared. Qua result the theorem is, no doubt, one that is seen to be true. But this eventuality has nothing to do with its content, but only with its relation to the knowing subject. The process of mathematical proof does not belong to the object; it is a function that takes place outside the matter in hand. Thus, the nature of a right-angled triangle does not break itself up into factors in the manner set forth in the mathematical construction which is required to prove the proposition expressing the relation of its parts. The entire process of producing the result is an affair of knowledge which takes its own way of going about it. In philosophical knowledge, too, the way existence, qua existence, comes about (Werden) is different from that whereby the essence or inner nature of the fact comes into being. But philosophical knowledge, for one thing, contains both, while mathematical knowledge sets forth merely the way an existence comes about, i.e. the way the nature of the fact gets to be in the sphere of knowledge as such. For another thing, too, philosophical knowledge unites both these particular movements. The inward rising into being, the process of substance, is an unbroken transition into outwardness, into existence or being for another; and conversely, the coming of existence into being is withdrawal into the inner essence. The movement is the twofold process in which the whole comes to be, and is such that each at the same time posits the other, and each on that account has in it both as its two aspects. Together they make the whole, through their resolving each other, and making themselves into moments of the whole.

>>18814280
I don't have any strong objections to your post. It's when people say shit like "the fact that the visual cortex uses calculus to process and create sight" that I have a problem with. That is a very specific statement about calculus and the brain, which is plain nonsense. The hostility from my side comes from weariness. It gets tiring seeing pseuds making grand philosophical statements with quantum mechanics or something like Godel's theorems, when its obvious they don't know any math or physics.

>Also, dismissing all philosophical logic as meaningless probably falls into the category of not staying in your lane.
I'll admit that my tone was aggressive and leave it at that.

>>18814193
Holy fuck you're retarded anon. The smugness just makes it worse too.

Can't you see how being able to construct multiple different types of fully logically coherent (which you actually can't) systems of mathematics proves the very thing you're arguing against? The actual efficacy of mathematics is, except in a super anal way, not being called into question. Just as the movement away from attempting to discern first and final causes to discerning efficient causes wasn't about anything other than attempting to increase the actual real life applicability of those very questions. If something works, it works. But if you can't logically explain the foundation for WHY it works, then you're basically just a kid trying things and then repeating them if they're beneficial.

>>18814193
>Not in math
Brouwer? Girard? Coquand?

You seem to be simply ignorant of constructivist math.

>>18814426
>But if you can't logically explain the foundation for WHY it works,
not a philosopher. don't care. just don't go around making factually incorrect statements about math and physics, thanks.

>>18814503
There aren't really mathematicians doing constructivist math. It's a very niche thing.

>>18814525
You've admitted that you don't care to understand the foundation of that of which you work. This, in my book, reduces your 'science' to an equal hardness as sociology.

It's find to build castle in the air solely because it works; it's not fine to then pretend that you have an absolute science above and beyond question.

>>18814574
You're trying to drag me into an argument I don't care about. Again, just don't go around making factually incorrect statements about math and physics, thanks. (not accusing you of doing so, there's only one post in this thread I would qualify as schizo rambling.)

>>18813964
>Pretty sure he is referring to the unsound nature of Euclid's argument, which was discovered in the early 20th century and did make a huge splash as did new geometries (Through the Looking Glass is based on this period).
Are you referring to the dicoveries of non-euclidean geometries in the *19th* century? Those do not contradict Euclid inany way. Perhaps you mean to say that Euclid was not rigorous enough, certainly this is true and Hilbert's geometry goes a good deal towards fixing that but his arguments are still as correct as they've ever have been (even if he sometimes makes an unstated assumption). There is nothing wrong with the 4th postulate, besides it's redundancy.
>Law of the excluded middle had been largely replaced by negation as faliure. Logic definitely did undergo a paradigm shift last century.
While its true that the last century represented a paradigm shift its not true that the law of the excluded middle was thrown out. Outside of some philosophical wankery (i.e. the sort of navel gazing that leads geniuses to denying that anything but potential infinities exist.) the law of excluded middle *hasn't* been deboonked. Most mathematicians still employ proof by contradiction and logicians still use the law. It's strange that you would try to make the norm appear to be an archaism and an irrelevant philosophical position the mainstream though.

>>18814525
I listed two alive working constructivist mathematicians and your response is they don't exist. A real titan of intellect here.

>>18814678
I didn't even say that

>>18814193
>It just means that there are alternative geometries that are internally consistent.
Let me correct this sentence before somebody well-actuallies me. What is true is that noneuclidean geometry is "no worse" than euclidean geometry.

>>18814193
Haha, didn't update the thread so I didn't see this post before replying here (>>18814654) definitely agree anon.
>>18814426
The existence of other geometries says nothing about the soundness of Eucid's geometry. You can construct different systems for any mathematical system, does this mean math has "collapsed"?

>>18814503
You've moved the goal post from
>everyone accepts this niche position in the philosophy of mathematics
to
>this niche position exist.
Nice argument pseud.

>>18814783
I wasn't the original poster, constructivism is just obviously the superior methodology. It's not surprising that the decaying corpse of academia hasn't caught here.

>>18813812
I'm sorry I misread that part im retarded

>>18814738
>does this prove that math has collapsed
Yes, insofar as you have no basis for considering—your—mathematics as having any innate superiority over any other kind of mathematics given that both are equally logically coherent of themselves. Thus the only grounds of preferencing a particular type of maths is merely utility; which is a pragmatism that can be applied to anything, not just mathematics.

>>18815058
Okay and? How does this btfo Euclid? Like that anon said, this is just very peripheral philosophy, and though I personally find that sort of thing interesting, none of it supports the statement that the LEM has "largely been replaced" or that Euclid was in some way "fundementally wrong" (which again, the arbtriyness of systems doesn't prove). It's besides the point for actual mathematics and the (perhaps not deliberate) misrepresenting of multiple scientific fields and their developments is as irresponsible as it is wrong.

>>18814426
We can blame Dewey and pragmatist epistemology for posts like those... fucking Americans.

Coherence epistemology is the only one that makes sense.

>>18815261
Euclid was fundementaly wrong in that not all of his postulates are actually provable. This isn't new, Proclus saw this.

With uncertain, hybrid, and probabilistic logic, the LEM is just simply not a law anymore, just a feature of a system. This is all old news but it did cause a big stir back on the day. Fuzzy logic isn't fringe btw.

>>18815261
Euclid thought his postulates were self evident truths and they turned out just to be axiomatic.

>>18814629
You're apparently pretty ignorant of the field you say you're an expert in. The pragmatic view of math is a recent development and a reaction to late 19th century, early 20th century paradigm shifts.

It doesn't matter to you because you can't see outside the paradigm, and haven't bothered to try. However, mathematics used to be seen as divine, the language of God.

If you don't know the origins of the paradigms you inherent, you're unlikely to ever break out of them.

>>18809049
>Most importantly, evidence that only a tiny fraction of the brains activity makes it to conciousness (38 petroflops vs 50 bits), but that complex thought seemingly occurs subconsciously
interesting

>>18809049
We need to reject Descartes and return to Scholastic realism. Divorcing the representation from the thing in itself was a disaster

>>18815527
>Euclid was fundementaly wrong in that not all of his postulates are actually provable.
They are postulates, you assume that they are true regardless if they are provable or not. Provability is actually sort of a bad thing (but not awful, a Principia Mathematica approach isn't always necessary or useful). Proclus did give some relatively insignificant criticisms of Euclid's Elements though but this really just makes it harder to imagine what non-euclidean geometries proved about Euclid's Elements (other than there are other geometries) that two millennia of scrutiny hadn't (even Euclid seems to have been iffy about the 5th postulate).
>LEM is just simply not a law anymore, just a feature of a system.
Pointless observation. This not what philosophers are arguing and it means little to mathematicians, it's simply semantics which only makes sense according to the system you've adopted.
>Fuzzy logic isn't fringe btw.
No one said it was fringe, but things like "modal" and "fuzzy" logics are beside the point and have little to do with most applications of logic (which are still largely Aristotlian). Most mathematicians, for example, still do proofs by contradiction, regardless of whatever some quirky logic says.
>>18815977
Whether Euclid's axioms were "sel-evident" means nothing for the soundness of his arguments.

>>18815977
>t. "didn't like math" in high school, but it was okay because he was "smart but lazy".

>>18809049
Neo-Scholastics was never refuted just left in favor of positivism.
I say you are too Reddit to talk lit

>>18817313
How exactly do the neo scholastics justify direct realism against Cartesian doubt?