NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/philosop/tech/4642

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-30 | 5.7 KB

Xref: sparky sci.philosophy.tech:4642 sci.math:17496
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!ub!dsinc!cs.widener.edu!eff!news.byu.edu!news.mtholyoke.edu!nic.umass.edu!umassd.edu!SMUCS1.UMASSD.EDU!PMSC13SG
From: [e-mail] (Stephen Grossman)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.math
Subject: Re: Numbers and sets
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 30 Dec 92 06:12:04 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Lines: 86

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>
>[e-mail] (Stephen Grossman) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]>,
>>[e-mail] (Randall Holmes) writes:
>
>>>In article <[e-mail]>
>>>(Stephen Grossman) [e-mail] writes:
>SG:
>>>>Is there a relationship between sets and Plato's Forms?
>
>RH:
>>>Plato's Forms were ideal exemplars of
>>>mundane objects; sets do not have this character (the set of all
>>>natural numbers is not a perfect natural number).
>
>SG:
>>Perhaps I should have asked about Kantian, subjective forms. I am starting
>>"Plato, Kant and Aristotle in Math" by Glenn Marcus (2nd Renaissance Books,
>>1991, audio) and should have some wisdom on math soon.
>
>Indeed, you should.  Alas, you will not.
>
>You will not have any "wisdom on math" for the same reason you will
>not have any on "Kantian, subjective forms".  The reason is that your
>hallowed sourses of holy Objectivism lie.  There are no such things as
>subjective forms; moreover, Kantian philosophy is not concerned with
>the question of forms, period.  End of this discourse.

    SG         Zeleny has perfected the argumentum ad loudmouth. I sympathize
with the burden of studying under Nozick but you should really make some sort
effort at evidence. Perhaps, tho, in these postmodern times one should not
expect much beyond another drink. I feel unaccountably sad. "Its unnerved me
dreadfully." Barbara Stanwyck said that. I wonder what I should do. The lack of
subjective forms unnerves me dreadfully. Is there a hole in being as Sartre
imagined? Would everything be drawn into the hole? Would creatures from the
other side contact us? I, for one, take no small comfort in Parmenides' plenum.
There are surely subjective forms, most especially in Kant. Of course, study
Kant thru the shattered glass of symbolic logic, elucidation, or whatever
postmodern style is regnant in the remnants (John Milton, move over) of the
university, and all sort of odd corners come to hand. If you haven't yet dis-
covered subjective forms in Kant or anywhere else, who am i to throw cold water
on your lack of objectivity? The multicultural ethos will find no enemy here,
bub. No, I think that your metaphysical confusion exists as much as Ayn
Rand's wisdom. To be rather academic let us note the rather large description
of non-noumnal items in _The Critique of Pure Wisdom_. If Zeleny would
demonstrate the use of whatever he does when he "does" philosophy, why, I'm
sure social solidarity would increase. Then again, you may be in obscene
contact with noumenal reality. Why not? Look at Madonna. They discuss her in
alt.postmodern. "My flock was lovely: lovelier I." Should you claim that your
philosophy(?) provides a new reading of the noumena, I, for one, won't be sur-
prised. I knew you had it in you, Mikey. And, God love ya, you didn't dis-
appoint. I feel I'm in bad taste. I've unleashed my wisdom (or my wit, anyway)
in an inappropriate context. Like sledgehammers and flies. Yccchh! A gentleman
would never indulge himself. I'm not really educated. I just know philosophy.
>SG:
>>Marcus says scientists (excepting computer scientists w/info theory) use
>>only pre-20th century math and quotes a leading mathematician on the
>>impracticality of math. Comments?
>
>Sure thing, I will give you comments.  Modern mathematics is widely
>used in physics, chemistry, and biology.  Consequently, Marcus is a
>fraud or an ignoramus; most likely, he is both.  You, on the other
>hand, are a tiresome, gullible fool.  It takes all kinds.

    This perfect example of the argumentum ad snobbum is an object lesson
for the wary. Always provide evidence before your interlocutor does. It saves
one from embarrassing gaffes. In this regard we might consider leading
mathematician Hardy's claim that math is useless. After my ongoing study of
the Objectivist philosophy of math is complete I shall inform the hoi polloi.

    I really don't talk this way. The guys in the bar would look at me funny
and some big jerk would probably stick his face in mine and scream some
childishly humorous remark. I'd spot the pointed ashtray, and in the spirit
of philosophy, wonder about its effect on his throat. Well, he sat down and I
went back to my _New York Times and St. Pauli Girl (and torritos and salsa
sauce. Hey look, guys, it's Mikey! Mikey, how th' hell are ya. Ya want a beer?
================================================================================
    "In that world, you'll be able to rise in the morning with the spirit
you had known in your childhood: that spirit of eagerness, adventure and cer-
tainty which comes from dealing with a rational universe."
                                                              AYN RAND
================================================================================
Stephen Grossman <[e-mail]>
================================================================================