/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20438061]

>math... isn’t... real...

[Anonymous No.20438066]

>>20438061
Communism isn’t real.

[Anonymous No.20438068]

>>20438061
I’m beginning to think this faggot was stupid guys

[Anonymous No.20438070]

Uhh... nietzchesisters?

[Anonymous No.20438079]

>>20438061
desu he was right about this one, mathematics as a subject was invented by the proto-capitalist classes of antiquity to oppress the proletariat

[Anonymous No.20438084]

whats the real point he's making? this is almost certainly an argument in support of the assertion that knowledge of man's fundamental meaninglessness paralyzes his spirit or some such idea

[Anonymous No.20438089]

I think this doesn't have to do much with math as it has to do with Nietzsche's perspectivism. IF YOU HAD READ HIM, YOU WOULD GET THE REFERENCE.

[Anonymous No.20438096]

I think what he means is that nature isn't divisible, at least not in the same way "100" is. Nature is a flow of intensities and our experience of it is fundamentally qualitative. We have to abstract from our perceptions in order to "do" math.

[Anonymous No.20438098]

>>20438061
math is one of the few fields where Platonism is still mainstream

[Anonymous No.20438107]

>>20438096
Also in order to, say, count a group of people, we have to conceive of "person" as a unit, when we could just as well count a group of limbs, a group of hair, a group of exhalations, etc.

[Anonymous No.20438117]

The problem with Nietzsche is people take aphorisms out of context from him and give whatever interpretation they want without reading the actual work and trying to understand what he actually means

[Anonymous No.20438124]

>>20438117
There is no context only interpretations

[Anonymous No.20438144]

>>20438124
Interpretations depend on contexts. You can obviously interpret an aphorism without having read the book, but you're not working with the same context as those who are referencing the book.

[Anonymous No.20438148]

Mathematics is not real, but it is certain and it is what gives man the possibility of meaning. Like pillars sustaining the temple of knowledge, mathematics stand as the foundations of a solid epistemology, unshakeable pillars as they are, but we know what they are made of, or most importantly, we know they are constructed. This is where Platonism finds its ground, as if methametical axioms, the One and Good stands as Principle, and multiplicity as what follows from unity.

[Anonymous No.20438161]

Most of the Nietzschefags on this board have never read his Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense (ironically the first thing by him they teach in college) and it absolutely shows

[Anonymous No.20438163]

>>20438124
>There is no context only interpretations
Only if you're a retard
>INB4.. NOOOOB UT NIETZSCHE SAID
Nietzsche never said there is no context. He was a philologist , you retard. That's the whole point of philology.

[Anonymous No.20438185]

>>20438148
Humans created meaning for themselves before they created "a solid epistemology."
>multiplicity as what follows from unity
You could just as well conceive of unity as following from multiplicity.

[Anonymous No.20438200]

>>20438163
NOOOOB UT NIETZSCHE SAID

[Anonymous No.20438207]

>>20438163
Dilate tranny

[Anonymous No.20438211]

>>20438185
Yes, but I'm just going to the point where humans become aware of a need for a scientific foundation as valid epistemological ground. If we go back it is even more interesting how there is a certain intimacy between the sciences and the ''primitive'' mechanisms (religious fables, etc., which if on the one hand math is also a creation, on the other hand these fables and superstitions are true and real for the fact that they work).

>unity as following from multiplicity
Sure, but as an epistemological ground there needs to be an axiomatic, apodictic principle for such a scientific procedure, hence the parallel with unity (as in a Principle for Platonic and Aristotelian metaphysics), and you could also transpose it to a point.

[Anonymous No.20438286]

>>20438061
What a cunt. This is real?

[Anonymous No.20438323]

>>20438061
neetshie is correct. the boundary between math and nature is engineering, and you'll find that most fields therein are overwhelmingly empirical. ideal mathematics are very difficult to map onto reality beyond basic conservation-of-energy style arithmetic.

[Anonymous No.20438331]

>>20438185
>You could just as well conceive of unity as following from multiplicity.
How? Have you read any of Zeno's problems? Unity can only follow from multiplicity logically, ie examining multiplicity and determining what it is resolved into. Metaphysically, unity cannot be derived from multiplicity in substance without incurring paradoxes of infinity (some of Zeno's paradoxes, not however the well known Achilles paradox), however in essence multiplicity requires unity to be multiple, as a multiple is always derived from its base (to know multiples one must know ones, to know one, one does not need to know multiples). This broaches on the topic of prime numbers, because the existence of primes shows the basic necessity of one (the number divided by itself) as its base. All numbers which are not primes can be resolved into either primes, which are then resolved into unities. Primes are unique in that they are the closest numbers to one, despite being potentially infinitely removed from the one in terms of pure magnitude.

[Anonymous No.20438339]

There is at least one actual circle: Nietzsche's reasoning.

[Anonymous No.20438369]

>>20438331
Multiplicity does not need to be composed of distinct units/elements. Consider a gradient. It is different at every point but is not composed of points.

[Anonymous No.20438391]

>>20438061
What’s his point here? Everyone knows you can’t be completely exact. That’s why math is supposed to be the IDEAL so you get as close as possible. What a fucking retard bet he though he was so smart saying that. KEHMHEHEHEHE GO CRY TO THE HORSE BAAHAHHAHA

[Anonymous No.20438398]

>>20438391
>math is real because... BECAUSE I SAID SO OK?

[Anonymous No.20438421]

>>20438084
i think he just means that math is based on abstractions, and no abstraction is perfectly realized. To take these abstractions seriously you have to ignore your own observations of the world.

[Anonymous No.20438424]

>>20438398
YOU STUPID…. I WAS SAYING MATH IS FAKE AND ITS OBVIOUS AND HES STUPID FOR POINTING IT OUT BECAUSE ITS OBVIOus

You are illiterate!!!!

[Anonymous No.20438439]

>>20438424
You stupid I fuck your mother and granddaughter and whole family!!!!!

[Anonymous No.20438443]

>>20438061
Except geometry is found everywhere in nature and humans literally trace fractal patterns with their gait whenever they walk

[Anonymous No.20438458]

>>20438443
Yeah so to speak but since we found that space is non Euclidean, the actual geometry of nature follows something drastically different from what it appears, triangles for example do not have 180 degrees of angles but only seem so to our perceptional faculties

[Anonymous No.20438460]

>>20438443
Show me a 90 degree angle in nature

[Anonymous No.20438467]

>>20438079

this guy gets it

[Anonymous No.20438538]

>>20438079
>>20438467
glad you agree it is the patriarchal, aristocatic class that is always responsible for creative power

[Anonymous No.20439188]

>>20438161
>took this long into the thread for someone to point this out
newfags need to learn not to post if they don't know what the fuck they're talking about

[Anonymous No.20439209]

>>20438061


Borrow money from someone who says maths isnt real and lay them less than they’re owed.

[Anonymous No.20439224]

>>20438089
I see him as essentially praising nature for its imperfections and finding value in the worlds bumps and bruises

[Anonymous No.20439536]

Yet our thoughts and abstractions are as a part of nature as the trees, the stars and grey concrete.
Absolute magnitudes exist, tangible or not, there's nothing in nature that is "unnatural".

[Anonymous No.20439542]

One of his most embarassing moments. The pseudo Aristotlean thinking he can simply solve this ancient debate by fiat.

[Anonymous No.20439563]

>>20438460
Okay retard

[Anonymous No.20439624]

>>20438061
absolutely correct.

https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/speculative-musings/mathematics-and-the-russian-doll-structure-of-like-the-whole-universe/
"The great debate in mathematics, for instance, is between the constructivists (formalists) and the Platonists, those who see mathematics as an artifact of the human brain, and those who think it’s a kind of conceptual perception, a way of grasping things that exist independently of the mind.
The question boils down into whether there’s any mathematics absent our experience of it. The prior question should be whether there’s any such thing as mathematics as we *experience* it at all. What if mathematics *as we experience it* is neither constructed nor discovered, but *imposed* by the severe structural and developmental constraints faced by the thalamocortical system?"

"From a metaphysical standpoint, the idea would be that the universe possesses a Russian Doll structure, that *what we perceive* as ‘structures’ are conserved and recapitulated across vast differences in scale.
A neurostructural recapitulation is simply a neural circuit, distributed or not, that is capable of interacting with intermediary systems so as to enable systematic interaction with some other structure. You could just as easily say that the recapitulation is distributed across the entire system, and that each recapitulation harnesses circuits shared with all other recapitulations. In this sense, the brain could be seen as a *recapitulation* machine, one capable of morphing into innumerable, behaviour-to-environment calibrating *keys*. In this sense, there need be no ‘one’ representation: differentiating fragments could be *condensed*, waiting to be ‘unzipped’ in a time of need. There need be no isomorphism between recapitulation and recapitulated, simply because of the role of process. In all likelihood, recapitulations are *amoebic*, dynamically forming and reforming themselves as needed."

[Anonymous No.20439636]

>>20438061
>math... isn’t... real
It's true though.

Math is a mind tool.

[Anonymous No.20439660]

>>20439636
Mind is the most real thing though, therefore maths is real.

[Anonymous No.20439675]

>>20438161
He endorses the transcendental aesthetic in this essay which he completely changes his stance on later in his works. Definitely not a good place to start for his final thought, unless you're going chronologically along with Birth of Tragedy. The reason it's given first in college is likely just because it is relatively simple and touches superficially on a bunch of issues that are considered important in philosophy in general.

[Anonymous No.20439677]

based

[Anonymous No.20439691]

>>20439675
that's one small part of the essay in the intro, the broader point of the essay contextualizes his statement on math here

[Anonymous No.20439702]

>sneedsche

[Anonymous No.20439710]

>>20439691
No, the part I was referring to was around page 6 or 7. It's closer to the end of the essay than the beginning. He does mention it more than in that one place though.
>the broader point of the essay contextualizes his statement on math here
You mean where he states that maths is an a priori form of intuition? That's not exactly the same sentiment as was stated in the OP. All of the arguments against truth in that essay refer to concepts that are not mathematical, ie genera that abstract from concrete perceptions, as opposed to mathematical constructs which he says are the intuitions of quantity which structure experience. Overall it's very Kantian/Schopenhauerian, just like BoT.

[Anonymous No.20439724]

>>20439710
I don't recall him saying math is an a priori form of intuition in the essay, but it's been a while since I've read it. But the gist of the essay is that it's an attack on Platonic Forms and abstractions, no? The general idea is that these things are derived from patterns that exist in the chaos of becoming, but they do not really "exist." Geometric constructions, which never perfectly exist in the real world, are a classic example of this

[Anonymous No.20439739]

>>20439710
>>20439724
I'm checking it again now and yeah I don't know what the fuck you're talking about
>But everything marvelous about the laws of nature, everything that quite astonishes
us therein and seems to demand explanation, everything that might lead us to distrust
idealism: all this is completely and solely contained within the mathematical strictness and
inviolability of our representations of time and space. But we produce these representations in
and from ourselves with the same necessity with which the spider spins. If we are forced to
comprehend all things only under these forms, then it ceases to be amazing that in all things
we actually comprehend nothing but these forms. For they must all bear within themselves the
laws of number, and it is precisely number which is most astonishing in things. All that
conformity to law, which impresses us so much in the movement of the stars and in chemical
processes, coincides at bottom with those properties which we bring to things. Thus it is we
who impress ourselves in this way.
Is he not saying mathematics is a construction here?

[Anonymous No.20439747]

>>20439739
>all this is completely and solely contained within the mathematical strictness and inviolability of our representations of time and space
This is called the transcendental aesthetic. That's not even the exact part I was referencing, but that works well enough. It both refutes the first point in the quote about "mathematics not coming into existence if...", and the association of mathematics with sensible objects.

[Anonymous No.20439787]

>>20439660
Yeah, it became real when some nerd invented it.
This is what nietzche wanted to say.

[Anonymous No.20439799]

>>20439747
>But we produce these representations in
>and from ourselves with the same necessity with which the spider spins.
I know, read the next sentence brah, he's arguing against it

[Anonymous No.20440568]

>caring about what is real
I will dedicate my life to thinking about abstract math and make all of you seethe. You're no better than physicists.

[Anonymous No.20440627]

>>20440568
i WILL stop you

[Anonymous No.20440664]

>>20438061
>Numbers aren't arbitrary
Get a load of this weak mythologizer.

[Anonymous No.20440813]

>>20438084
Do you know the history of mathematics? It isn't real but believing it to be realer than real spurred it's development

[Anonymous No.20440826]

>>20438061
Not his best moment, I agree.

[Anonymous No.20440829]

>>20438458
yes, but hyperbolic/eliptic geometries are a thing

[Anonymous No.20440859]

>>20438331
Dude I can't run faster than the turtle! The turtle is already 100 meters ahead!

[Anonymous No.20440924]

>>20440627
No you won't

[Anonymous No.20440929]

Nietcels in absolute disarray kek. Stick to Marx, faggots. He doesn't pull this cringe shit.

[Anonymous No.20440969]

>math isn't real!!11!
and?
you retards are the ones moaning about how school doesn't teach us taxes
>>20440568
science can't be real either desu. see epistemology

[Anonymous No.20440993]

>thread about math not being real fills up with actual retards
Beautiful.

[Anonymous No.20441040]

>>20440969
>>20438061
well there are a few valid points to this,

Mathematics as a word refered to non-numerical sciences from the Egyptian God Maat, I believe.

Algebra, the claim of cretins to be intelligent, refers to the breaking and setting of bones in plaster and comes from Arabia; which is a good metaphor for what continuous study of numbers actually does to a persons brain.

Relying on numbers above actual data doesn't produce anything; the bankruptcy of the contemporary united states which is numerical-centric demonstrates how mere numbers does not equate to knowledge of anything in the real world.

Numbers are often touted as a pseudo-science in their own right; the hyper-fixation on numbers being demonstrable in divination in mysticism beingnot at all different from stock market gambling or just gambling in general - in addition, no pun intended, to the baseless claim that numbers have other magical meanings and can be used to encode, decode and make-up prophecies from the various holy books.


I would agree that basic addition and subtraction and limited multiplication is a useful basic skill, and that there is a place in bomb science for people who know how to make artillery work, but beyond this..? Obviously mathematics became irrelevant the moment pocket calculators came into being, allowing anybody to perform these clown antics without needing to dedicate their entire life to the study of it as some abstract other worldly thing or even as some kind super science.

Bearing in mind under the Roman Quadrivium and Trivium a child would have mastered these university graduate doctorate level skills probably around the age of 8 or 9 and moved onto more practical subjects that were are use to themselves and the society.. such as Law, Rhetoric, Military Artillery, Engineering, Slave Management, Hedonism, etc.


I mean, this was my view of maths as a child and it's never been disproved, since I have always had access to a calculator, that the thing has been a waste of time since it was introduced into the first public schools in the 19th century and snowballed into this arabic bone-setting ideology. It's like we're not allowed to use Nuclear Power and are forced to make do with sticks and a bit of flint, or something, in every single engagementin the most impractical manner, by forbidding the use of a calculator. When we live in space stations perhaps it'll be thought of as worthwhile for our time to inhale oxygen from balloons because to use air filtration pumps in the space station would be 'cheating' somehow.

>>20438061
Nich is one of my favorite overrated qualmists.

[Anonymous No.20441084]

>>20438061
Holy shit how is /lit/ this stupid? Guys hes saying the FIELD of MATHEMATICS would not have come into existence, not mathematics itself

[Anonymous No.20441519]

>>20441084
>the FIELD of MATHEMATICS
you mean NUMERACY

[Anonymous No.20441591]

>>20438061
>Math alone can't be a sufficient description of the world
Illiterate faggot

[Anonymous No.20441946]

>>20440568
another faggot getting lost in the concequences of his retarded self selected axioms instead of peering in the mind of god . Thank us for dirac functions and field theory and if you still have any grey matter left learn some physical mathematics. Also how the fuck can i understand category theory ?

[Anonymous No.20442055]

>>20439563
Where's the right angle? I just see a bunch of colors.

[Anonymous No.20442112]

>>20441946
you never will with that attitude.

[Anonymous No.20442141]

Nietzsche is retarded.

[Anonymous No.20442194]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EghIJG9sQHE

[Anonymous No.20442281]

>>20439624
/thread

[Anonymous No.20443567]

>>20438061
Only based thing he's ever said.

[Anonymous No.20443587]

>>20438084
His point is the same as Protagoras'.

[Anonymous No.20443916]

>>20439224
i see him as a weak bitch ass faggot nigga who couldn't get laid and shitpost on public consciousness

[Anonymous No.20444237]

>>20438061
> Language would certainly have not come into existence if one had known from the beginning that there was in nature no such thing as "good", no "not", no 'is", no "hello", no "thank you", no "sneed", no "based", no "Nietzsche is faggot loser retard", no "sex", no "meds".

[Anonymous No.20444938]

>>20438061
Is that really what you got from this?

[Anonymous No.20445867]

>>20438061
Suck my hyperbolic schlong, parallel pussy

[Anonymous No.20445936]

Abrahamicists are coping hard itt

[Anonymous No.20446791]

>>20438061
As a Nietzsche bro and a math student I find this very uncomfortable.

[Anonymous No.20446864]

>>20444938
are you coping right now?

[Anonymous No.20447602]

>>20438068
lol yeah I think so

[Anonymous No.20447736]

>flunks math

[Anonymous No.20447747]

>>20438061
Y‘all haven’t read the Greeks, have you?

Could you tell me what Platon said about an idea OP?

[Anonymous No.20447758]

>>20438079
this! so much this, comradesister! also, friendly reminder that you need to dilate twice each day for a minimum of 15 minutes, just as your doctor prescribed!

[Anonymous No.20447852]

>>20438369
Rather, it’s composed of infinite points.

[Anonymous No.20447861]

Who needs math when you got metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.20449240]

>>20438061
This reminds me of a quotation by A. N. Whitehead:

>"Philosophers, when they have possessed a thorough knowledge of mathematics, have been among those who have enriched the science with some of its best ideas. On the other hand, it must be said that, with hardly an exception, all remarks on mathematics made by those philosophers who have possessed but a slight or hasty and late-acquired knowledge of it, are entirely worthless, being either trivial or wrong."

[Anonymous No.20449700]

>>20438068
>>20438070
>>20438161
>>20438286
>>20438339
>>20442141
>>20443567
>>20444237

>Nietzsche sucks b-because, WELL BECAUSE HE JUST DOES OKAY!!!!! CHRIST IS KING!!!!!

[Anonymous No.20449708]

>>20449240
It's a good refutation of Nietzsche to be sure, considering he never properly ventured into mathematics and failed all of his early school classes in it.

[Anonymous No.20449758]

>>20438061
>What is Godel's theorem

[Anonymous No.20449762]

>>20438061
I suppose we could perceive things in such a terribly complicated way that we would never be able to make heads from tales or 1's from 2's

[Anonymous No.20449818]

>lol stupid incel
>OWAH KNIGHTED BY THE QUEEN BASED BASED BASED
>Theoretical PHYSICIST BASED BASED SCIENTIFICALLY BASED

[Anonymous No.20449910]

>>20438163
The context is itself only an interpretation.

[Anonymous No.20449913]

how can math be real if your eyes aren't real?

[Anonymous No.20449917]

>>20445936
Cope, once again doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.20449921]

>>20449758
Literally has nothing to do with this conversation you absolute pseud.

[Anonymous No.20449925]

>>20443916
I guess after all it's just a matter of opinion, right? I mean who cares what color the sky is or whether water is a liquid or gas or solid. Like fuck it, its all a bunch of baloney

[Anonymous No.20449928]

>>20449921
Uh where are your sources?

[Anonymous No.20449950]

>>20439563
Are you sure that's exactly 90 degrees and not 89.99 recurring?

[Anonymous No.20449964]

>>20449708
Its not a good refutation, its just a statement. FYI im far from a Nietche fag, but the catagory of "refutation" shouldnt be applied here. its a truism.

More against your termonology rather than saying the above statement is false outright.

[Anonymous No.20449974]

>>20449964
Let me rephrase that then: it's a good repudiation.

[Anonymous No.20450038]

>>20438061
Nothing is real anon, but some things are more not real than others