But seriously, Veeky Forums - can we stop already with this meme?

You're not missing something, per se. I think the force of the suggestion is that later philosophy makes better sense having first read the Greeks. Personally, I can see someone beginning with the French, say, with Descartes. I fear, though, that the basis for his ideas and arguments would be harder to see. Not impossible, just harder.

Fucking /pol/ thinks everything is a meme because they can't understand anything.

Yes. As an example, I've been working on a senior thesis on Leibniz's mathematics and theology, and how the one in a way helps us to understand the other. His whole notion of forms and individual substance would make less than no sense if I had not had Plato and Aristotle in my freshman year.
>Granted, Plato's forms and Leibniz's are not quite the same, but whatever.

This intrigues me greatly. So, in a sense, pure mathematics can be understood as the "world of ideas" and applied as the "world of forms?" In the sense that pi is an expression of our failure to be able to understand eternity, and that the Pythagorean constant is an expression of how irrationality is embedded within even the simplest of structures?

Liebnitz and Newton both solved Zeno's paradoxes (which are based on eternal recursion and the concept of infinity) by instantiating the limit - this essentially reflects Godel's Incompleteness Theorem in that the system which includes infinity will essentially be forever bound to such paradoxes as Zeno pointed out, until one steps outside of that system by understanding infinity as strictly abstract, and understanding things only at certain bound points as they approach it, yes?

So, is there value in extending this principle to the binary duality inherent in the Law of the Excluded Middle, and approaching things from a perspective of more than a bivalent truth value? Can we construct a new calculus, where bivalence is considered as a function of time, and that things are only true or false at a given moment, but along a trajectory must be considered simultaneously both? Would this be a way to break out the systems which bind us?

I'm sort of 'sperging out on you, here, I know, but I've sort of been obsessed with this stuff for the past few years, and your seeing those connections got me all worked up. Answer whatever you can, or just think seriously about it and let it rattle around for a while...

what are you even talking about? Veeky Forums literally started a "Start with the Greeks" reading group and there was a 100-post argument because they didn't start with a handful of American and British secondary sources.

You must think this is Bizarro Veeky Forums, where people actually read, and maybe even read the classics...

Didn't the Greeks like to fuck little boys?

Maybe there's a reason Veeky Forums jerks off to the classics so much

Truth is nobody on this board has even read the Greeks

>In the sense that pi is an expression of our failure to be able to understand eternity
Oh my god, stop.

> the Pythagorean constant is an expression of how irrationality is embedded within even the simplest of structures?
Irrational numbers have nothing to do with the concept of irrationality in thought, the name just means they can't be expressed as a ratio of two integers.

>Liebnitz and Newton both solved Zeno's paradoxes (which are based on eternal recursion and the concept of infinity) by instantiating the limit
No, the point of a limit in most cases is that it is never reached, it's just what the function approaches and gets arbitrarily close to. So if you want Achilles to actually reach the finish line, saying he gets arbitrarily close to it doesn't solve the paradox.

> this essentially reflects Godel's Incompleteness Theorem in that the system which includes infinity will essentially be forever bound to such paradoxes as Zeno pointed out, until one steps outside of that system by understanding infinity as strictly abstract, and understanding things only at certain bound points as they approach it, yes?
STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP

I've read the greeks and I'm a pol migrant who thinks this entire board is a sack of heaping dog shit until we came

What does that say about Veeky Forums

Why is it that what I find most interesting about Mathematics is inevitably what makes mathematicians always tell me I'm wrong and to just stop? It sort of makes me sad. I'm sad now.

It says you are lying sack of shit.

Fucking no. I think it was mostly a waste of time for me.

>Identifies with Veeky Forums boards.
something went wrong with your life

this

Sorry man but it triggers me to see people misunderstanding mathematical concepts and thinking they're applicable to things they aren't, especially when they try to make it mystical or spiritual. A lot of popular misconceptions start this way because people pick up these memes without a rigorous understanding of the concepts involved. Really understanding math takes a lot of hard work and the more you understand it the more you understand that, while it is fascinating and even beautiful, math doesn't hold any profound insights into human nature or metaphysics.

>am I missing something?
The importance of the fucking Greeks.

Plato's dialogues are still the "tutorial level" of philosophy.

Virtue ethics has been experiencing a revival since Anscombe's Modern Moral Philosophy and MacIntyre's After Virtue, which results in FUCKING READ ARISTOTLE.

The Miliṇḍapañha is the Start with the Greeks of Buddhism, with one of the most concise yet thorough descriptions of the latter's philosophy, in the form of a dialogue between the Indo-Greek king Menander I and a Buddhist sage, with the kind of questions a Westerner would ask.

You could identify Freud's misreading of Oedipus Rex if you read or watch the fucking thing, and so on and so on.

If you know your myths, poets, tragedies, fables, etc. you know how genre fiction writers make a living out of reselling them to their ignorant audiences. Just like the Bible here: youtube.com/watch?v=Ebfjuk2fHJo

Then again maybe it's just a meme, and Veeky Forums recommends people to read timeless influential literature out of spite and hatred.

starting with the greeks has a negligible benefit when it comes to digesting most contemporary books
starting with the greeks has a significant benefit when it comes to digesting most contemporary literature

>Plato's dialogues are still the "tutorial level" of philosophy.
I read these (it was a collection of 3 books of same series, about 1000 pages or so) and I was annoyed by them. They were things that I had learned by proxy and nothing was new of them. Felt like reading a recap, which was wasted

If you really, truly have an interest in that type of mathematics you're doing yourself a disservice by not actually learning about it. People try to jump to wild spiritual pseud conclusions about math without a grasp of the work it takes to reach them based on some vague clickbait article they skimmed once all the time.
I study physics and it's probably even worse. You get all kinds of 15 year olds who just learned what QM was and are convinced it proves/disproves free will, or a hundred flavors of batshit crazy multiverse interpretations, or Scrodinger's Cat jokes. Then, when you try to explain to these people why they're so wrong, you literally can't because they don't grasp a single one of the underlying concepts.

>out of spite and hatred.
I was thinking more misguided pride and traditionalism.

But I appreciate your post. I am mainly worried about this sort of experience. But I have enjoyed the older pieces of writing in my field more than the modern works so I think I want to give the Greeks a chance. I have Pope's Iliad and Odyssey on the way.

Cheers m8. Getting more insight into Freud and Jung interests me, and not only do they reference the myths a lot, I see them as a sort of reincarnated Plato and Aristotle. I'll check out the classics.

So, that's like the tenth time I've heard that response, almost verbatim, from people in the field of Maths. Why are you so terrified of there being meaning in it? You do realize that such a visceral reaction actually suggests that you're afraid of the power of exploring it, right? I'm not trying to be a dick here, it's just that you seem allergic to the idea, and it should really make you explore why that is. We know that Math is essentially a language insofar as it is a system of expression, and the concepts it is capable of expressing are greater than that which the human mind is able to fully understand... is it just that you're reminded of the limits of human intelligence? Is Graham's Number, for example, a concept you don't enjoy? It's just so paradoxical, the idea of being so adamant about there being no connection between the language of math and essentially the entire history of philosophy that informed it. Anyway, I appreciate your response.

So you dismiss the philosophical questions about mathematics being of the human mind or of the objective universe, then?

The fact that maths, like language, paints a picture of the bridge between human subjectivity and the external world. It draws us into the mystery of human achievement and understanding itself.

A lot of writers up until 1930-1940s referred to Classics extensively, from Marx to Nietche to Early Christians to Arab Philosophers to Shakespeare you need to know a little bit of classics if you want to comprehend them.

Not saying you need to know everything or read every work of plato before moving on but it is very absurd to trying to read Early Christians who have a lot o platonic references, without knowing plato

I don't think that user was saying there is no beauty/mysticism/philosophy that can be found in math, he was just saying that laymen who don't actually know too much about math look for all of that in the wrong places.
I don't mean to offend but both of you sound guilty of that, picking popular subjects like pi and posting vague statements about how it pushes the limits of human intelligence or whatever.
It would be like making a long post on Veeky Forums about how The Fault In Our Stars is just so aesthetically perfect and makes you marvel at John Green's mastery of the english language and amazing power over human emotion. To someone who knows more about literature, it just sounds like a dumb or at the very least out-of-place statement.

So, that's the thing - I *am* "actually learning about it." I've studied math and physics for the past 20 years (albeit without a degree in those disciplines), and yet everyone in the field seems to have taken some blood-oath to simply refuse that there's any possibility of any sort of nurturing comfort in the improbability of our existence. Even worse, because there *are* so many intellectually dishonest zealots out there trying to use QM or Pythagoras to convert people to their version of god (can we just forget that the name "Intelligent Design" ever existed?), I wind up getting lumped in with the people that piss me off just as much as they do the Mathematicians and the Physicists! I'm in a no-man's-land of the nexxus between the humanities and sciences, and I'm seeing all these connections that neither end of the bridge give a fuck about because they're so wrapped up in the academic warfare of justifying and legitimizing the funding for their department over another (or, more to the point, showing how some corporation is going to specifically benefit from their work so they can earn a grant for the uni) that they can't be assed to consider it. It's sort of frustrating, tbqh.

start with the greeks, you cucked piece of shit

Sage!

So, you've nailed down Pi, then. Got that all figured out and can neatly explain it to us? You can reconcile the fact that a circle, when divided by its diameter, will result in a number that could be calculated until the alleged heat-death of the universe occurs without ever showing repetition or terminating, and you think that bringing it up is the equivalent of calling contemporary YA lit the best thing since sliced bread?! Are you actually serious, or are you trolling?

I am this poster.

I didn't say it pushes the limits of human intelligence. I'm saying that mathematics in itself is a reflection of human intelligence communicating with the external world in a profound and very successful way, and that is amazing. The more intricate mathematics becomes, the more interesting this relationship becomes.

>i don't think that user was saying there is no mysticism/philosophy that can be found in math

But he was, see below:

>especially when they try to make it mystical.
>math doesn't hold any profound insights into human nature or metaphysics.

Books I've read outlining the history of philosophy beg to differ, and I think some people want maths, like literature, to be their own precious little bubble of expertise that they can claim social ownership of. AND/OR they are so emotionally reactive against metaphysics that they don't want to be "tarnished with the same brush" (again implying that maths is something that belongs to them in any way).

It's not a meme, you dip.
What rustles MY jimmies is when people ask the same stupid questions over and over again without searching the archives and then get annoyed when someone gives them a shot - but entirely correct - answer, that they need to start with the Greeks.
Also, nice image macro, faggot.

Can someone post the corn picture for reference?

>So, that's the thing - I *am* "actually learning about it." I've studied math and physics for the past 20 years (albeit without a degree in those disciplines)
Good, I'm glad anons like you take interests in it.
>and yet everyone in the field seems to have taken some blood-oath to simply refuse that there's any possibility of any sort of nurturing comfort in the improbability of our existence.
I'm confused by what this means. Academia isn't comforted by the improbability of our existence? I think many are, based on the popularity of people like Carl Sagan in the scientific community (with views like the ones expressed in his pale blue dot monologue). But I'm unclear what exactly this is supposed to be and why you're convinced stem lacks it.
>I'm in a no-man's-land of the nexxus between the humanities and sciences, and I'm seeing all these connections that neither end of the bridge give a fuck about because they're so wrapped up in the academic warfare of justifying and legitimizing the funding for their department over another (or, more to the point, showing how some corporation is going to specifically benefit from their work so they can earn a grant for the uni) that they can't be assed to consider it.
So, what, scientists don't pay enough attention to the humanities and their connections to it? I agree. I don't think it has anything to do with the often-memed desperation for funding that is supposedly plaguing stem, though, and is more just a result of the type of people that are attracted to the field. The researchers I know are all very staunchly analytical and mostly see philosophy, especially modern philosophy, as language games without any rigor.

Thank you for being the eloquent and far more charismatic voice that I can't quite seem to muster right now.
>mathematics in itself is a reflection of human intelligence communicating with the external world in a profound and very successful way, and that is amazing. The more intricate mathematics becomes, the more interesting this relationship becomes.
Like, seriously, that is beautiful. I'm deeply touched by it because it's so much what I've been trying to say, and it frames it so well as a dialectic between human and non-human intelligence. I seriously love you, user.

>anons like you
Ouch.
>The researchers I know are all very staunchly analytical and mostly see philosophy, especially modern philosophy, as language games without any rigor.
You're sort of exactly confirming my point, here. Mathematics is also a language game, and the word "rigor" gets used all to often as a stand-in for "mindless repetition." We need to be looking at the underlying structures in both Math and other languages. We need to be learning Universal Grammar along with Calculus, and recognizing the algorithms that underlie so much of our functional cognition, and where our consciousness truly begins. We all need to start realizing that we're really speaking the same language.

The only thing the Greeks really help you understand is Ulysses. Most literature isn't that deep in Greek references, and if there are ones they'll be explained in the introduction or literally every single literary analysis of the work.

>that's like the tenth time I've heard that response, almost verbatim, from people in the field of Maths
I mean, when that many people who are knowledgeable about something tell you you're wrong about that thing for the exact same reasons, you should probably consider the possibility that you don't know what you're talking about rather than that everyone is just too close-minded to accept your wisdom.

>I've studied math and physics for the past 20 years (albeit without a degree in those disciplines)
Have you actually been reading textbooks? Stuff like A Brief History of Time doesn't count. I mean it's cool if you want to read that sort of thing but you shouldn't consider yourself qualified to challenge people who actually had to earn degrees. Can you do this undergrad level real analysis proof? Look, it even has a hint. Sorry if it sounds like I'm picking on you but the fact is you're giving off a distinct impression of pseudointellectualism.

>So, you've nailed down Pi, then. Got that all figured out and can neatly explain it to us?
Yes, π is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. Numerically, it can be defiend as 4 times the integral from 0 to 1 of sqrt(1 - x^2) dx. Admittedly, I couldn't give you the proof that π is transcendental but it's not like it's some sort of great mystery, it just involves more complex math.There's no answer to "why is it like that?" except the proof that it is like that. It's like that because it follows logically from our definitions and axioms.
>You can reconcile the fact that a circle, when divided by its diameter, will result in a number that could be calculated until the alleged heat-death of the universe occurs without ever showing repetition or terminating
Reconcile it with what? It doesn't contradict anything, except maybe intuition.

>Can you do this undergrad level real analysis proof?
forgot pic.

Why is MacIntyreposting so big now?
>nobody reads him
>shill him and Anscombe for about 2 months
>come back after a month of inactivity
>lit is even worse with more pol but somehow, MacIntyre is even a meme

Ok. If you're wondering why scientists as a whole rarely address those topics, it's because they're incredibly nebulous.
>looking at the underlying structures
There's all kind of research that happens in number theory, abstract algebra, and evolutionary linguistics, but none of it is within my grasp at all. I don't think you can relate disparate fields like these by just saying "we SHOULD relate them." I suppose this depends on what you mean by "looking at" them. What are you looking for? How do you look?
>recognizing the algorithms that underlie so much of our functional cognition, and where our consciousness truly begins.
There are people doing this right now, it's just really fucking hard.

I also didn't mean to sound sarcastic with the "anons like you" comment, I'm genuinely glad people like this kind of thing and want to have these conversations. I'm actually part of a group at my uni that goes to elementary schools and demonstrates physics experiments because I really like introducing this stuff to people.

My pleasure, user. Takes two to tango.

>shill him and Anscombe for about 2 months
Macintyre has been a thing since the start, some anons even sort of stalked him years ago iirc. So unless you shilled him on 2010 you're late to the party.

Dumbcunt

Not that user, but you are sounding like a bitter elitist. Being an intellectual (as opposed to pseudo-intellectual) does not mean you have to be a detailed expert at every system of knowledge in the world, and people CAN make meaningful commentaries outside their fields of expertise.

I don't need to know the ins and outs of architecture to comment on the quality of a city skyline and whether it is beautiful or not, or be able to paint a masterpiece to comment on the mystery within a work of art. All that user is saying is that the phenomena of mathematics, and it's place in the universe, fills him with wonder. This is not even a new stance to take in mainstream philosophy (e.g., start with the Greeks), because maths has been used within philosophy to generate meaningful contemplations of reality as a whole for a very long time.

You continually shutting him down, comparing him to a primary school student, and throwing equations in his face, makes you come across as a tired academic who deep down is bitter that your own subject matter does not fill you with the same degree of wonder.

>inb4 backtracking it IS wonderful, I never said it wasn't
Then you are in agreement. I'm sorry people are more impressed with the grandiose wonders of the universe than your postgrad maths skills.

Because he managed to sell Aristotle to non-Catholics, a way out of emotivism for analytic meta-ethics, and the human being and the culture thereof to ethical investigation in general.

>All that user is saying is that the phenomena of mathematics, and it's place in the universe, fills him with wonder.
That's definitely not all he was saying. He was making a lot of incorrect and vague claims that someone really familiar with mathematics would know better than to make and then calling mathematicians zealots for trying to correct him. Only the first two posts you quoted are me btw but I agree with the other one.

it's a meme you dip

>But I appreciate your post. I am mainly worried about this sort of experience.
What the fuck, are you actually scared of being potentially tricked into reading timeless literature? I'm triggered right now, this is the type of person I share this piece of shit board with, juvenile brainlets who needs to be hand-held through everything who would rather look for reason NOT to read rather than the opposite.

look LOOOOKK AT THIIIIIS look at these complete pseuds holy shit mane im cringing right now

>Why am I suggested to learn basic arithmetic before jumping into calculus?

I think the Starting with the Greeks graphics we have are too extensive and time-consuming to recommend to newcomers to Veeky Forums. We need a "Greek Starter Pack" instead, containing only the most vital pieces, excerpts, or abridgments so people don't give up from being overwhelmed.

I'm just starting with Plato. I finished Cratylus and really enjoyed it but I think I'm going to reread it after finishing some of his other work. Might read Symposium next. But I just plan on buying his Complete Works, as well as Aristotle's Complete Works.

Here's the thing, people are complaining about being told to start with the Greeks, but are they just complaining without even giving it a chance. I can't seem to put it down and I now understand why it's recommended as such a focal starting point. I enjoy it, but perhaps it's one of those things were when you are told to do something, you want to do something else, almost out of spite. I don't know. I'm enjoying the ride, then again depending on the preference of literature and writings that people enjoy, it might not be for everyone.

Come back after you've read the first 1,000 pages that are contained in the Start with the Greeks infographic. You'd still only be on the 2nd book too. That's how much there is on that graphic.

I know, I'm not in a rush. I've got whatever time I have left in life to enjoy reading and learning. I'll read through it in pieces and mix it up with other novels and literature as I please.

I'm up for the challenge. But yeah, I suppose a guide would be nice and perhaps I should have followed the guide before jumping right into Cratylus, but oh well. I'm doing this for my own enjoyment.

I'm of the opinion that the complete works of anyone are rarely worth reading. I'd rather knowledgeable academic sift for the greatest pieces and read those.

True, but I also just want the Complete Works for my bookshelf. I can read what I need as I go along and can go back to everything else later as I please.

Many Shakespeare Complete Works are inferior to buying the Arden/Oxford editions which contain only one work each because the Complete Works lack sufficient footnotes or supplementary material. Good editions, to me, have long footnotes, a long introduction, and criticism in the back.

I am unfamiliar with Plato/Artistotle editions though, but you might want to examine them.

If I were to buy the Shakespeare Complete Works I'd be looking at the Oxford edition.

Thanks for informing me of the Milinda Panha. Looks interesting as fuck but I've never heard of it before.

>We need to be learning Universal Grammar along with Calculus
UG is pseudoscience. Chomsky is a rationalist hack. Read more Quine.

>Chomsky is a rationalist
>Read ... Quine.
Holy shit user do some basic research before posting.

There's a short one with like 5 core books. You have to read Homer regardless btw.

"Start with the Greeks" was originally a response to those looking to get into philosophy and didn't know where to begin, and still stands as sound logic for such.
it just got out of hand because you're all a bunch of parroting newfags.
You don't have to be familiar with the Greeks beyond The Odyssey/Iliad for literary pursuits

I've never read the greeks and I usually don't have a problem reading philosophers except for Kant, Hegel and some of the other difficult ones. I might go and read some of the pre-socratics at some point in my life, but it will probably be after I finish Lacan and some of the frankfurters.

>some of the pre-socratics
Don't miss out on based Heraclitus.

Start with whatever you like.
It's just a meme

I hope you are as successful in the world as you clearly think you are.

>he doesn't know the significance of Greek mythology
Bet you didn't read the Bible either, huh.
And what about drama? You don't think the Greeks are important?

>schrodingers cat jokes
I fucking hate big bang theory for ducking using this now all the normies think they know what it means and overuse the shit out of it

I read the Bible cover to cover twice and I pick it up now and again.
I still maintain the fact that "start with the Greeks" started as a meme response to philosophy threads and Odyssey/Iliad are the only real "requirements".
Sophocles important, but I wouldn't consider him essential.

You're really missing the point. I respect the expertise of people who have devoted their studies to acquiring the understanding that they have - I'm just trying to make connections between disciplines. I have a Master's degree. I know how research works. I recognize that there are many areas in which retreading concepts can be seen as an insult to those who have spent their entire lives establishing generally accepted theorems, and I know how frustrating it is when someone refuses to accept your authority. I'm not doing that. I accept that you are an authority on Math because I can tell from your writing and the fact that you give at all of a shit about it. And obviously I'm not able to do that undergrad proof because I'm not literate enough to be able to translate it into the concept it represents - I know it's asking for proof that a pair of coordinates in the Real Number set that is continuous is also injective based on the idea that it's monotone (which it defines in the proof). I've taken enough symbolic logic to know that it's a set theory issue, and that it's essentially asking if being monotone is a necessary consequence of its being injective, and I'd probably go about proving it by demonstrating that for all a and b, given their continuity, there is no case where the function would not be distinct (which is essentially what disjunctive means, given the wiki). This proof would be somewhat tautological, however, because it is essentially what the definition of Injection is, according to what I could gather from five minutes on the wiki page for it: "Let f be a function whose domain is a set X. The function f is said to be injective provided that for all a and b in X, whenever f(a) = f(b), then a = b; that is, f(a) = f(b) implies a = b. Equivalently, if a ≠ b, then f(a) ≠ f(b)." The point is, I know I'm missing a lot of the details, but that doesn't mean that I don't understand the concepts. As for Pi, it's astounding that you are so glib about one of the most long-standing mindfucks of human history, and you're just shrugging it off. It *does* represent one of the limits of human knowledge, and this should be humbling to anyone who has tried to understand how the world works - which is anyone who studies math.
What's incorrect? What claims are you talking about?

Wow, you certainly did throw a lot at that. Thinking about pi in particular, I'd refer you to an essay of Leibniz's called "On the True Proportion, Expressed in Rational Numbers, of a Circle to a Circumscribed Square." He there treats the variable as a sort of contained whole that we cannot functionally describe except in the comparison of two harmonic series. He, moreover, refers to it as a mechanism that is given by a law of progression. The problem is that we can understand it, but not practically work it out. Leibniz's religious-mathematical arguments suggest that there is a gap between what we figure out in terms of efficient cause (physics & materials), and what can be said of final cause (metaphysics & forms). I don't know if that suggests that the two necessarily inhabit different worlds (idea vs. form, etc.), but that's something I'm still struggling with in the course of writing. Math seems to apply to both sides of the isle, and that's why I'm focusing on it.
DESU, I haven't read enough Godel to say much about it, but I'm working through the Nagel/Newman for my math course in college. And you lost me totally with the excluded middle bit.

Cheers!

Law of Excluded Middle is like the thing not in Hegelian logic but in Aristotelian logic, and is something Kierkegaard thought for example allowed for personal choice.

While it isn't the same thing as the principle of bivalence the two are not entirely separate either. It's in this part that people get confused.

> Being an intellectual (as opposed to pseudo-intellectual) does not mean you have to be a detailed expert at every system of knowledge in the world
>people CAN make meaningful commentaries outside their fields of expertise
Did you miss his entire post where everything he said about mathematics is wrong? Your whole post is that x is possible therefore x in this case must be true. Those things you said can be true but were most definitely not true in this instance.

>What's incorrect? What claims are you talking about?

>In the sense that pi is an expression of our failure to be able to understand eternity
> the Pythagorean constant is an expression of how irrationality is embedded within even the simplest of structures?
>>Liebnitz and Newton both solved Zeno's paradoxes (which are based on eternal recursion and the concept of infinity) by instantiating the limit
> this essentially reflects Godel's Incompleteness Theorem in that the system which includes infinity will essentially be forever bound to such paradoxes as Zeno pointed out, until one steps outside of that system by understanding infinity as strictly abstract, and understanding things only at certain bound points as they approach it, yes?

That is what that poster was talking about. Those are all the wrong claims that OP makes.

What texts do you have in mind for Aristotle and Kierkegaard? It's been a while for me as far as the first goes, and I'm woefully under-read on the second.
>Yes, I fell for the Fear and Trembling meme, but it isn't totally my fault. It's my school's curriculum to start with it.

Thank you - I will be reading it shortly! The LEM bit was a thing that struck me during a Symbolic Logic course (just LSL [Language of Sentential Logic], but I did some work with LMPL [Language of Monadic Predicate Logic] after the quarter was finished). As mentions, it's not exactly the same thing as bivalence, but it sort of is, too - here's the context in which I am using it: Given a truth-value in LSL, there is exactly one option for an atomic sentence: true or false. This can be mitigated in a sense by the inclusion of existential statements ("There exists a ___ such that...") and "For all ___" statements, but the bivalence of atomic sentences (which are essentially statements without any logical operands, such as "My dog is sleeping," that can be symbolized in a Well-Formulated-Formula by adding conjunctives (&), disjunctions (v, or "or"), negations (~), conditionals (->, or "if A then B"), and biconditionals (, or A if and only if B) seems to be a fairly solid bottom line in logic. Then, after reading Ruben Hirsch's "What is Mathematics, Really," and seeing the example of why division by 0 can't be defined (because we'd either have to treat 1/0 as 0 or 1, which would allow for a simple proof that equates 1 and 0, thus undermining the entire foundation of the real number system), it reminded me of how binary systems are essentially based upon the LEM, and yet how in "real life" truth-values do not really work like that, and something can be true and false simultaneously, based on context (not to mention the idea that it can be true until proven false). Of course, the particle/wave duality maps onto this idea in a pretty obvious way, because if we consider the wave-function as a piece of information, it can't be bivalent, because it is collapsed only upon observation, which places it in a superpositional state. Thus, I would like to see a system of logical expression built upon a non-bivalent foundation, such that a truth-value is conditional upon contextual factors, if not a function of time itself (if that makes sense... it might not, that's really where it gets squidgey in my head).

Anyway, thank you again, and good luck with the thesis!

Again, please explain what's wrong with them. I understand if that's not how you would say it, but what about these things is objectively "wrong?" How would you rephrase these things in a way that you feel would be more mathematically valid?

I was the first person to post my diary desu actually

cute if girl

>am I missing something
I don't know you fucking retard have you ever read the Greeks? No you haven't, so please stop wasting everyone's fucking time.

Oh, you think girls who like math are somehow cute because they subvert the traditional patriarchy? Or do you just associate the capacity to feel sadness (and actually express it) with some inherent femininity? Either way, it seems like a manifestation of some toxic masculinity constructions, and you really need feminism, tbqh. Of course, to be fair, I'm reading your post as inherently male, which underpins the heteronormative hegemony of gender construction, so this response is actually also a product of toxic masculinity, and now I need feminism. Of course, you still have no idea if I'm a girl or a boy, and even if I define myself as one or the other, you don't know that my body conforms to your definitions of the same, so we're in a lovely little state of non-binary identity, and I guess I have Schroedinger's genitals (which, the original thought-experiment being a pussy in a box, makes a certain amount of sense).

tl;dr: hey there, sailor.

Writers, philosophers, scientists, politics, film, and just about everything else.

Now, start with the Greeks.

Hey man, I was sold a while ago, but thanks for the double whammy.

Είναι ειρωνιkό το γεγονός ότι θα υποθέσει ότι πρόkειται για ζήτημα προϋποθέτει μια kατάσταση άγνοιας. Θα πρέπει να διαβάσετε Παρμενίδης kαι να εξετάσει τα πέντε επιχειρήματα. Πώς μπορεί να σπαταληθεί χρόνος όταν θα συμμετέχουν στην μεγάλη παράδοση της συνομιλίας;

All I got from Greeks was how to be a man via Odysseus.

>In the sense that pi is an expression of our failure to be able to understand eternity
This isn't even maths. This is of the level of bullshit as saying that 2+2=4 is an expression of a belief in a perfect deity since the first equation seems so elegant you must also believe in God. It's taken two separate and completely unrelated matters and jammed them together because to the user there is some conceptual similarity between them. This isn't maths, this is terrible, terrible philosophy. Everything that user said was exactly like this. I can't refute anything he says mathematically because he isn't doing any maths.

Let me give an example from this
user responding to the bullshit.
>Irrational numbers have nothing to do with the concept of irrationality in thought, the name just means they can't be expressed as a ratio of two integers.
This was his response to
> the Pythagorean constant is an expression of how irrationality is embedded within even the simplest of structures? You can't refute this mathematically because there is no math happening.

>This isn't even maths
I think you're a troll now. Pi is a number that doesn't repeat, and goes on forever. Forever. Once more for the people in the back: forever. You know what some synonyms are for that word, "forever"? "Infinity" is one, and "eternity" is another. It's a basic concept (finding a ratio between the number that represents the length of the circumference and diameter of the same circle) that unlocks a process by which you have a single number that will never resolve into a whole, and you could literally go on FOREVER with it. This is also true of other irrationals, I know, but there's something about the specific instance of Pi where you have the multiple infinities idea that Cantor (I think it was Cantor) had playing into it that really makes it seem particularly suited. Have you considered the possibility that *you* haven't put enough thought into it? Because at this point, I think you're actually trying to convince yourself that there's no connection. Come on, user... give maths a hug and tell it you're sorry you thought it was just a cold and dead system of reckoning numbers. It knows you love it, and it's very forgiving.

Aristotle for logic would be Organon, although his works like rhetoric and poetics are related.

Kierkegaard Fear and Trembling is actually related, though have a look at his journals to clarify. Either/Or is probs the most explicit work in this way though

I won't lie; Aristotle's Rhetoric helped me cope with existing in a very powerful way. If you can learn how to apply Ethos, Pathos, and Logos to a wide enough scope (probably way the fuck wider than you're thinking right now), then it can be ridiculously transcendent.

But if you want to sound more bad-ass when you criticize art, you should start with Poetics.

I'm successful at not being a postering pseud, more than anyone can say about you.

*posturing*
>throws around that "pseud" label to cover up his own intellectual insecurity
You're so meta I can't even tell what's real anymore, user. Are you in the cave being tricked by the shadows, or am I in the cave, and are you a shadow?

Sing through me Muses! By Phoebus' light, even the shadows of the cavern can not escape the retracting light which my aegis illuminate! Ignorance in knowledge and knowledge in ignorance, who's light are you basking in? Helios or the very son of Letona?