I think calling dillentantism is lazy. But I think some of the connections made are needless, the conclusions drawn have no bearing on either method of maths, or meta maths.
But maybe I need to do a second reading. More to come on this, then.
I'm reading Gilles Chatelet, and some of his introductory thoughts w.r.t. mobile abstractions, measures of virtuality, and spatium, are compelling. But then he attempts to do some philosophy, taking basic dynamics and motion equations as a priori.
I'm constantly thinking - Why?
If only we had a look-into-the-future-Kalman-filter-driven-relative-value 60 billion dollar hedge fund to profit off it, life would be merrier
Why is Mathstodon not more popular??
Is it just my feed? Or has it not taken off yet?
If PTSD can be in the zeitgeist, then so can biophilia
Marx, Engels and Kropotkin manage to rouse you in this way.
I am suspicious of the "down to earth" explanation of the reasons behind revolutions, I don't see the outcome of revolution as a certainty. However, one is still compelled by gleaming materialism.
The writing style of the popular 19th century political economist has a raw moving energy, that I don't find in political writing that is meant to be raw and moving.
"The revolution needs bread" is such a powerful statement
A brilliant example is Susan Vishvanath's "Something Barely Remembered" which I just finished
Short stories that are connected either because of shared character, or experience are a nice cosmos to test the replicability of your philosophical idea.
Perhaps toss it around, and try to create complete stories
I follow you here yes. Care to say more?
I don't necessarily see this as a critique of philosophy.
Although I will say, logic is something you are overlooking here. Formal epistemology too, is "useful" in a sense.
Am I missing something? (Read this in a non adversarial tone)
Perhaps the Darwin-Hobbesian epistemology is tinged by the methodological pessimism of history, with its focus on war
I was introduced to possibilities of critiquing the Darwin-Hobbes universal war intellectual regime with Lynn Margulis, but turns out the anarchists were talking about this a long time ago.
Margulis and anarchists aren't saying the same thing, but critiquing the same thing
Most my philosophical thoughts on symmetry and fractality, comes from "Branches" by Michel Serres
Just finished "I want to be a mathematician" by Halmos, and moving on to his NST. Currently on his "Algebraic Logic" book as well
Hey! I have actually seen, but not read this book before. I'm all for metamathematics reading, where the "meta" means "about", rather than meaning "a priori", in the sense of logic.
The fact that Brentano sits at the genealogical head of both phenomenology and the Lvov-Warsaw school is very interesting to me
Perhaps we need to pay more attention to the Lvov Warsaw school?
Just finished Infinite Jest, and it left me wondering about what beauty actually means, and precisely why I thought Foster Wallace's linguistic experiment was "beautiful".
I don't know why it's so good.
- Sarbi, London, Year of the Oddly Smelling TESCO Pasta Sauce
Reading this book called "Art Sex Music" about the British artist Cosey Tutti who worked from the 70s onward. The description she gives of an artists life feels more staccato than continuous at times, but it seems to marge into banality, only to explode again in moments that define the new staccato.
Recently found out about the History Workshop movement, and Raphael Samuel.
Sounds cool and I want to know more
Christian theologians, after Augustine thought that the earth was 6,004 years old.
That's like someone scheduling a meeting at 7:23 in the morning.
Oddly specific
So much rent seeking while the world burns
If an animal were to think, without access to physics and narrativized linear history, how old would they think the world is?
That sounds really interesting
Hi! I'd like to be added please?!
Oh this is would be a great read, thanks for the rec
It's so funny that the "Mystery of the Sardine" imagines an order of palmists who are backed intellectually by a woman who studied phenomenology instead of the greeks
I wasn't consciously using it because it hasn't permeated enough in discourse outside analytical philosophy, I think.
There's still space for a non radical critic to come and say (wrongly) that "possible worlds" is all wrong
I was merely pointing out that I don't seem to consciously use necessity, for example on a daily basis, even though contingency is immediately useful.
"Artificial" not because I'm claiming it's wrong, but merely because it externalizes some of my usage of language, s. t. I am now "conscious"
