>The consideration of mathematics proceeds on the most universal forms of the phenomenon, space and time, which are themselves only modes or aspects of the principle of sufficient reason; and it is therefore the very opposite of that consideration that seeks only the content of the phenomenon, namely the Idea expressing itself in the phenomenon apart from all relations. Moreover, the logical procedure of mathematics will be repugnant to genius, for it obscures real insight and does not satisfy itHow can you not love Schopenhauer
>>24824700>schizobabbleIgnored
>>24824710He lays it out very clearly, you're just being filtered. ChatGPT may be able to help you understand.
>>24824710Filtered, If you can't understand Basedhauer then you're the lowest grade of the will's objectivization
>>24824700>The consideration of mathematics proceeds on the most universal forms of the phenomenon, space and time
>>24824700>Moreover, the logical procedure of mathematics will be repugnant to genius, for it obscures real insight and does not satisfy itThe genius in question clearly did not attain mathematical maturity yet
>>24824836There is no mathematical maturity rartard, Mathematics is a the calculations of the sufficient reason, principalis universalis don't have any level to it they're just that, So even if you're a master at Mathematics you're just being a dumb nerd who's calculating the inference of the objectivization of the will
>>24824861the sign of a true genius is to adhere to a dead guy's rigid metaphysics so that you can dismiss everything you don't understand as beneath you
>>24824861Ben Shapiro tier religious cuckery
>>24824819literally nothing is false about this. otherwise, mathematics is just legos for high iq autists.
>>24824892>literally nothing is false about this.
>>24824700The more you guys post Schopenhauer the more I realize he is not to be listened to. Aristotle and Nietzsche are the only good philosophers, possibly Kierkegaard
>>24824900notice how you didn't address the second part of my post
>>24824871>>24824877Not a single argument to be found.
>>24824871His metaphysics allign with that of Spinoza, Gnosticism, Kabbalah and anything that supposedly came close to atleast defining reality, But regardless I agree with you but still Mathematics which is actually proven that is only for placid shallow people
>>24824905Kierkegaard and SpinozaNietzsche is somehow close to the spectrumAristotle i don't think so, In fact anyone from the greek is outdated
Who had a higher IQ, Euler, or Schopenhauer?
>>24824910Spinoza was an egoist who saw knowledge as the most gratifying pleasure
>>24824913Who had a higher IQ, the guy who wrote a pastiche of Kantianism while derailing every other page to rant about his resentment against Hegel and university professors while describing how much of a genius he was, or the most prolific mathematician of all time whose complete works are too voluminous to have even been translated and who advanced mathematics singlehandedly by a hundred years all while being blind and simultaneously raising 13 children?
>>24824905>Aristotle and Nietzsche are the only good philosophersYou might be even more retarded than Schop dicksuckers.
>>24824938>Derailing into hegel Did you even read the World As Will ??? He literally provided profoundly great arguments that actually dethroned other terms by philosophers, And his knowledge is actually praise worthyI suggest you read the world as will
>>24824917All Philosophers are egoists anyways, They give you knowledge through connecting dots made by other retards in order to give you their cheap shit ethics
>all this math autist seethe itt
>>24825021you literally made this thread to seethe at math
Even gods don't give second chances
>>24824913>babbling charlatan against a true prodigy not even fucking close
>>24824836>>24824871>>24824938>>24825056you worship a system invented so niggers could trade cowrie shells for coconuts and, to a lesser extent, fish
>>24824913I think Euler would do much better on an IQ test than almost anyone because his genius expressed itself in a way that very much in line with how IQ tests are conducted.However, Euler and Schopenhauer operate in completely different fields and neither could have done what the other did.
>>24825199Pretty sure Euler could have made bad philosophy as well.
>>24825176Tell that to Plato and Pythagoras who considered math the father of philosophy
The greatest mathematicians don't make discoveries through "logical procedures" though. Mathematical geniuses have "aha" moments, where for a moment they get a glimpse of some aspect of eternity, and THEN, they begin the laborious task of translating that into coherent mathWe already know there are limits to mathematics too
>>24825227wow and we all know plato was never wrong about anything, i guess you're right
Putting down an actual science in favor of academic mysticism. What has Schopenhauer given to the everyman? Would the computer exist if it wasn't for Schopenhauer? According to Schopenhauer, maybe.Can a mathematician write a symphony? Can a mathematician take a blank canvas and turn it into a masterpiece? ... Can a Schopenhauer?Ah-ha, I see your point, Schopenhauer! But riddle me this:Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? The worst part about Schopenhauer is that he'd actually ponder that for a while.>>24824740One thing ChatGPT can't do is make Schopenhauer understand the immensity of "mathematics". I suppose actual science will filter this kind of academic.>>24825176If that's all you see when presented with "mathematics", that means you're as unenlightened as the niggers you make fun of for not reading "Schopenhauer".
>>24825316i also see a distorted system that has been used to create machines and objects that add nothing to the scale of human values
>>24825321While I agree, the same could be said of a lot of "Schopenhauer" out there that has done more harm than good to "human values".
>>24825321What are some human values?
>>24825333you're not wrong. read thomas reid instead of these lunatics opposed to common sense>>24825335any value that makes you act differently from an animal or an animalistic human
>>24824700I'd like to add that Schopenhauer also concluded (wrongfully) that your mother is severely overweight and a whore.
>>24825358Then computers are a human value
>>24825383by values i meant beliefs in your head. i thought that was obvious.
>math unimportantThis is just humanitiesnig cope on them being mere 100 IQ shitwits, but with a thesaurus.
I see geometry in most of the greatest works of literature and philosophy ever written
>>24825517This.
>>24824710mindlet
>>24825517You mean like you project it onto random works?
>>24824700>>24825489I'll be honest, I have no idea about mathematics, but it's always been in the back of mind that I want (need?) to learn something about it one day. Not sure why, though. Can someone help me out with this? Why would mathematics even be important? As far as I'm concerned, nothing actually truly matters apart from aesthetics and ethics. I'm willing to have my mind changed, obviously.>>24825316>What has Schopenhauer given to the everyman?Ideas about the arts, nature, compassion, and generally how to see the world? I think lucid pessimism (not from your own experiences necessarily) makes a lot sense if you're not dishonest and/or heartless.>Would the computer exist if it wasn't for Schopenhauer?What intrinsic worth is there in "actual science" or a computer?>Can a mathematician write a symphony? Can a mathematician take a blank canvas and turn it into a masterpiece?... Can a Schopenhauer?You got that from "I, Robot," but you got him there. Anyway, help me out with my questions above, if you don't mind.
>>24824871>the sign of a true genius is to adhere to a dead guy's rigid metaphysics so that you can dismiss everything you don't understand as beneath youMathlets B T F O
Ahem... I like learning things, whether be it math or philosophy.
>>24825227You don't realize why Plato's Philosophy is called extremely rational and rigid huh ? And Pythagoras is a mathematician not a Philosopher
i like schopenhauer because he thinks the world is pretty shit and i also think so. there are other people who think like me.but his metaphysics is arbitrary. it could be entropy but this is probably not what he means by the will.>>24825965what facts are there to learn from philosophy?
>>24825517Kant diffused Geometry
>>24825818I get that too but to be fair Mathematics isn't that worth digging into
>>24826001>what facts are there to learn from philosophy?Nta but you already answered your own question: that the world is pretty shit. Not sure what value there is in "learning facts" though.
studying math never gave me a sense of meaning.
>That the lowest of all mental activities is arithmetic is proven by the fact that it is the only one that can also be executed by a machine, just as now in England this kind of calculating machine is already in frequent use for the sake of convenience. – Now however all investigation of the finite and the infinite at bottom amounts to a lot of reckoning. In this spirit we should evaluate the ‘mathematical profundity’ ridiculed by Lichtenberg when he says: ‘The so-called professional mathematicians, relying on the immaturity of the rest of mankind, have acquired a reputation for profundity that closely resembles that of holiness, which the theologians claim for themselves.’t. schopenhauerBonus:>we obtain only a few arbitrarily communicated results from them, and are in the same position as the man to whom the different effects of an ingenious machine are shown, while its inner connexion and mechanism are withheld from him. we are forced by the principle of contradiction to admit that everything demonstrated by euclid is so, but we do not get to know WHY it is so. we therefore have almost the uncomfortable feeling that we get after a conjuring trick, and in fact most of euclid's proofs are remarkably like such a trick. the truth almost always comes in by the back door, since it follows per accidens from some minor circumstance. frequently, an apagogic proof shuts all doors one after the other, and leaves open only one, through which merely for that reason we must now pass. often, as in the theorem of pythagoras, lines are drawn without our knowing why. it afterwards appears that they were traps, which shut unexpectedly and take prisoner the assent of the learner, who in astonishment has then to admit what remains wholly unintelligible to him in its inner connextion. this happens to such an extent that he can study the whole of euclid throughout without gaining real insight into the laws of spatial relations, but instead of these, he learns by heart only a few of their results... in our view, however, this method of euclid in mathematics can appear only as a very brilliant piece of perversity.
>>24824700>The consideration of mathematics proceeds on the most universal forms of the phenomenon, space and timeBut that's false, quantity as such is prior to space and time. Schopenhauer has a knack for picking out the most retarded bits in Kant as dogma and ignoring/misunderstanding everything that's interesting in him. The general line here, that mathematics is external and can never tell you the whole truth of things, is universal to all the idealists.>muh Schopenslop principle of sufficient reasonIt's not a principle at all it's just an arbitrary, external category or 'bundle' with no speculative unity or logical development.>>24826227This is plagiarism from Hegel's Science of Logic, one of the easy bits that even someone like Schopenhauer could understand.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hl205.htm#0471Schopenhauer is retarded, his followers are retards, read the real idealists, not this babyfood.
>>24826227>that second quoteAlso plagiarism, from the preface to the Phenomenology of Spirit. See the whole section starting from paragraph 41. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ph/phprefac.htm>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.And so on. Blatant plagiarism.>>24826001>I have this opinion/emotion and I like how Schopenhauer like reinforces my opinion and emotionNot cut out for philosophy. Maybe one day, likely never.>>24825009>He literally provided profoundly great arguments that actually dethroned other terms by philosophersHis one and only concrete argument against Hegel is that he thinks Hegel is transcending experience and hypostasizing logical categories. But this is a retarded misreading, Hegel is a Kantian, and his logic is a spin-off/improvement of Kant's own transcendental logic. I'm not trolling or being a partisan, Schopenhauer is objectively a fraud and a retard.
Mathematics is a specific area of symbolic logic. Space and time have nothing to do with it, beyond the fact that they can be modelled with symbolic logic.
>>24826227The second quote in particular demonstrates a complete lack of mathematical understanding. A blatant example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.Honestly, it would be interesting to get some input from the anons on /sci/, if only it weren't for the fact that the majority of them somehow manage to be even less mathematically inclined than the average dude on /lit/.And honestly, of the few engineers I've met that can actually read philosophy, most just take it as dogma and are unable to question it.
>>24826293The Dunning-Kruger effect is all on you in this case. Don't you remember what Kant says in the transcendental aesthetic? You think Schoppie is saying that mathematical proofs are contingent but you're missing the point entirely, which is that quantity is indifferent. Again, though, he is plagiarizing Hegel.
>>24826310more top Tier physicists have profited from Schopenhauer than from Hegel or Proclus, or Sir Dunning-Krüger.simple as.
>>24824910>His metaphysics allign with that of SpinozaNo they don’t, they’re quite at odds with each other.
>>24826290you can't count without time. one must come after one.
>>24826275Hegel is literally incoherent fraud who cannot submerge an original thought from his insipid mind, Schopenhauer has dedicated a whole metaphysical system that actually is really cohesive and logical per se
>>24826322p.s.:>That Arithmetic rests on the pure intuition or perception of time is not so evident as that Geometry is based upon that of space.15 It can be proved, however, in the following manner. All counting consists in the repeated affirmation of unity. Only for the purpose of always knowing how often we have already affirmed unity do we mark it each time with another word: these are the numerals. Now repetition is only possible through succession. But succession, that is, being after one another, depends directly upon the intuition or perception of time. It is a conception which can only be understood by means of this; [pg 205]and thus counting also is only possible by means of time. This dependence of all counting upon time is also betrayed by the fact that in all languages multiplication is expressed by “time,” thus by a time-concept: sexies, ἑξακις, six fois, sex mal. But simple counting is already a multiplication by one, and for this reason in Pestalozzi's educational establishment the children are always made to multiply thus: “Two times two is four times one.” Aristotle already recognised the close relationship of number and time, and expounded it in the fourteenth chapter of the fourth book of the “Physics.” Time is for him “the number of motion” (“ὁ χρονος αριθμος εστι κινησεως”). He very profoundly suggests the question whether time could be if the soul were not, and answers it in the negative. If arithmetic had not this pure intuition or perception of time at its foundation, it would be no science a priori, and therefore its propositions would not have infallible certainty.t. Schopenhauer
>>24826322Incorrect. The magnitude of a number is usually described in terms of set theory nowadays. "After" in this sense is a short-hand metaphor for day-to-day usage, not a rigorous description of what, say, three actually is in relation to two.
We can't make itBut we can build something like it
>>24826338how is natural number set defined without ability to add n times one to one?
>>24826338Magnitude is actually described in book 5 of euclid's elements
>>24826310>Again, though, he is plagiarizing Hegel.Why do people say this shit? Even if its true they share similar opinions, wouldnt that logically come from both reading Kant and disagreeing with him somewhat rather than Plagiarism? I have grown beyond Schopenhauer and see his flaws. But that doesnt mean I dont still hate Hegel and especially his fans.
>>24826334The first axioms that all subsequent math was based on are assuming the existence of points and lines in space. They need space not time.The number line is spatial not temporal.
>>24826353The single point is outside of time and space as it has no part
>>24826316>>24826327So compare these Schopenpseud replies to these:>>24826255>>24826275To put it in terms the Schopenpseuds would understand, idealistanons have a demonstrably higher IQ.>>24826322Of course you can't COUNT without time, the action of counting occurs within time, but mathematics does not consider time as such (unless you count applied mathematics but that obv doesn't count). A unit is not a second.>but....but.... how could I count without... time??You guys are fucking retards, I'm sorry.>Aristotle says time is the number of motionHe means that it is the quantity of motion, not that it actually is a number. Holy shit he deals with this on like the third page of the Categories and Schopenpseud still gets filtered. I think his misreadings of Aristotle are even more annoying than his misreadings of Kant.
>>24826353>They need space not time.Some of you need to read bergson. I think he honestly does much better than Kant and any of the post kantian idealists about getting into the nuances of space and time
>>24826355It has a position in some space or it's not a point.
>>24826361It's position is relative to another point, without another point it has no position
>>24826352>I have grown beyond Schopenhauer and see his flaws. But that doesnt mean I dont still hate Hegel and especially his faYou have not read a single one of Hegel's works, you don't even know what he thinks. I have no idea why people are so eager to have strong opinions about philosophy without taking the trouble to study anything. Hegel liked to say everyone has the plan for a shoe in his own foot, but no one thinks that makes him a qualified shoemaker. But in philosophy, seems like 95% of people who express interest in it just want to spout bullshit waffle opinions without putting in an ounce of genuine effort.
>>24826358what does an equal sign mean without ability to evaluate one side before the other? "a is b" makes no sense without separating a and b in the mind, yound think them at the same time.>it just IS mangrigorous modern mathlets ignore reality of mind
>>24826371>things can only be separated in time>the temporal process of words and images in my mind is identical with the concept being thoughtI can't argue with you man, you might think this is a copout but it isn't, you're not smart enough for philosophy.
>>24826370I simply got filtered by hegelian electrodynamics>Electricity is the purpose of the form from which it emancipates itself, it is the form that is just about to overcome its own indifference; for, electricity is the immediate emergence, or the actuality just emerging, from the proximity of the form, and still determined by it - not yet the dissolution, however, of the form itself, but rather the more superficial process by which the differences desert the form which, however, they still retain, as their condition, having not yet grown into independence of and through them.'>Hegel, Philosophy of Nature, 1817Bonus>An example of the existent specification of gravity is furnished by the following phenomenon: when a bar of iron, evenly balanced on its fulcrum, is magnetized, it loses its equilibrium and shows itself to be heavier at one pole than at the other. Here the one part is so affected that without changing its volume it becomes heavier; the matter, without increase in its mass, has thus become specifically heavier.” §293, Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences.>The absurdity of the statement is highlighted by Schopenhauer: “ ‘If a bar supported at its centre of gravity subsequently becomes heavier on one side, then it falls to that side; but an iron bar falls to one side once it has been magnetized: therefore it has become heavier in that place.’ A worthy analogue to the inference: ‘All geese have two legs, you have two legs, therefore you are a goose.’ For, put into categorical form, the Hegelian syllogism reads: ‘Everything that becomes heavier on one side falls to that side; this magnetized bar falls to one side: therefore, it has become heavier in that place.’ That is the syllogistic reasoning of this ‘distinguished philosopher’ and reformer of logic.”
>>24826343You define it as the set of all natural numbers, then define natural numbers. Infinite sets don't require summation to be defined. Infinite sequences do, but as I said, most mathematicians and philosophers of mathematics now think of numbers in terms of set theory.>>24826350He describes it in terms of divisibility, which isn't useful for number theory, only for dealing with physical quantities.
>>24826375you still can't explain equal signsad
>>24826371An equal sign indicates identity. If a=b, then a=b in exactly the same way that a=a. It indicates that two statements are different expressions of the same thing. Again, this is symbolic logic. It's ludicrous to think that time or order of expression have anything to do with it, unless you'd assert that the statements "a=b" and "b=a" are meaningfully different.
>>24826388Nta, by the way.
>>24826388>thenexplain it without timekekinb4>it followsKekk
>>24826392Yes, nothing about the usage of the word "then" in that post indicates that equality is a function of time. I'm not surprised you have such difficulty with mathematics if your thinking is so vulnerable to empty verbalisms.
>>24826398yeah, i'm just a brainlet who can't emancipate myself from vulgar meaning of "then", i must achieve Gnosis.
>>24826406Even in vernacular English the word "then" doesn't on its own imply the movement of time or a temporal sequence. It is also used to indicate conditionality. And in any case, the sentence you're objecting to was an example for your own convenience, not the definition, which was given in the sentence immediately prior.
>>24826412you indicate homosexuality
>>24826414Whenever continentals try to do logic, it always ends up here.
>>24826363That point is completely irrelevant to anything. You can't build lines, triangles or the entire history of math on points with no position. 2 has a spatial position relative to 1 on the number line. For most history all math was explicitly spatial, if an idea didn't intuitively map on to a space it was considered wrong, the idea of a negative number was considered nonsense because there's no such thing as a box with a negative size.
>>24826422I'm talking about a single point, please tell me where the point is positioned without using another point to do so
Proclus talks about the point, he considered several views but iirc doesn't quite pin it down to a definite view
>>24826468Without the space to build that point is pointless. If you can position another point relative to this point then this point has a position.
>>24826489but a point has position, so far as it appears seated in the bosom of the phantasy, and has a material subsistence. But unity is still more simple than a point, on account of the community of principles. Since a point exceeds unity according to position; but appositions in incorporeals produce diminutions of those natures, by which the appositions are receivedThoughts on this
>>24826392“If p then q” is a logical construction that is defined to mean “not p or q.” Mathlets fuck off
>>24824700Why does it have to be either or? Can't one study math and philosophy?
>>24826518Points don't have to be and probably aren't fundamentally real except they really are powerful to model the world. We make up a spatial grid and overlay it on real space to predict where the planets go etc.In reality the closer you come to measuring something at an actual point the more models built around points break down, space isn't real and the globalists are making the frogs gay.
>>24826607This could work with xor but not with or. Do you even Logic?also negation of x requires preexisting x.also evaluation of statement requires preexistence of statement.trapped in time.
>>24826631> This could work with xor but not with or. Do you even Logic?Do you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional> also negation of x requires preexisting x.Defining existence in terms of time doesnt help you win the argument, it just makes you a dogmatist
Why are mathcels so terminally autistic and unable to grasp simple concepts?
>>24826377>I simply got filtered by hegelian electrodynamicsWow. I see it now. This nigga Hegel is genuinely retarded. Im starting to understand it. Look at this confident play with words to describe electricity wrongly. I think thats the appeal. Look at the words hes using. "actuality emergency proximity form emancipates overcomes its indifference non dissolution of the form". He talks about Electricity like its a critic analyzing a character in a play in an elaborate almost "elitist" sense. Where you recognize the words being used, but theyre being used in such abstract manners, that it obscures the basis of where any of this analysis actually comes from.I think people like this attract a type of person that likes the sort of high brow "mysterious" sense that writing in this flowery almost holier than thou way invokes.So that it doesnt actually matter the substance of whats being said. It matters that you can UNDERSTAND what is being said, that is presented in a "secret cool kids club" sort of way, as proof of your belonging to the perception and association of the use of those words which you created (and are compelled to create as even I am) of a higher/grander form of understanding.No matter how Hegeltards seethe. The mere fact that I can idenitfy this in him talking about something we know him to be objectively retarded about (and even subjectively this isnt an interesting way to talk about electricity that actually offers some new perspective, sort of the same way that one can objectively validate the theory of evolution but offer subjective explanations to fill in some gaps of the theory) At the very least suggests that he cannot be taken as grandly as he has at face value, their is a flaw of how he communicates. Maybe their is substance, but its draped with flowers, for the "right person"
>>24824700the same guy that tells you to read anatomy textbooks before reading his books made for pharmacists
>>24826692All this to say hegel is for pseuds. We know.
>>24826692>even subjectively this isnt an interesting way to talk about electricity that actually offers some new perspectiveyes, at least Schopenhauer's attempt to defend Goethe's colour theory and disprove Newton was a genuine attempt, worthy of at least some consideration unlike hegelfaggotry.
im a mathlet
>>24825818We can use computers(given time) to silence the will by uploading our consciousness. Allowing us to transcend suffering from hunger, death, ambition, and desire. Like a digital ascetic
>>24827940>uploading our consciousnessExcuse me?
>>24827940enjoy literal hell lmao
>>24824700>I'm not stupid because I don't get math, math is stupid because it doesn't get me!Schopenhauer wrote calmly in his diary (black covers) while listening to Nine Inch Nails.
>>24827940>silence the willYeah, no.
>>24824700That's probably true, but buddhists and lacan have better solutions to the "nothing makes you happy" problem.Ascetism is schopenhauer's solution and it does not appeal to me.
>>24828126The conscious observes comes before math and is therefore more fundamental.
>>24825489Nigga for all those imaginary 100 iq people who live inside your head its not about math being difficult but simply boring and unrewardingYou're meant to retread more than 2000 years worth of formulas, memorise all of them and then at the end still have about 80% chance of end up as a data analyst for some soulless globohomo corpoForget about drinking the kool aidYou and countless others have erected a 20 feet monument to the kool aid and conduct yearly pilgrimages in its worship
>>24828993Just admit that you're too stupid to grasp math beyond Algebra 2 and call it a day frognigger..
>>24824700He might have a point, but 19th century philosophy really sucks, I thought only Marx wrote like that.>>24824819If anyone laughs at this post like it's stupid then explain the qoute.
>>24829000I don't care about math beyond Algebra 2 because last time I had to was in high school during some unimportant testI know very well I can conquer any field I'd like if I truly put my mind to it but there has to be some reward at the end otherwise I don't care, and no earning a lot of money is not actually a real award in case you're curious
>>24826000>And Pythagoras is a mathematician not a PhilosopherGet a load of this math boy.
>>24829007I can calculate the exact distance between a hot dog and petrol in 8000 dimensional space. That's not reward enough for you?
>>24828993You think math is about formulae and memorisation instead of the beautiful domain of pure creativity beyond even art? Ngmi. You've never even seen mathematics.
>>24826133Math is taught in a mindless drone like manner. Nothing in math is taught in a way that shows the true genius and thought process its discoverer had. They teach it that way because they want people to write code and use calculus for manufacturing and design. Not because they want you to realize the pureness of the mathematical soul or possess any kind of deeper understanding of the universe.>>24825321Math has been used mostly for power.
>>24829025This is probably the only remotely close to even philosophical post in this thread that I agree with.But thats how these "truth" systems have always been. The basis for institutions of power. I forgot which philosopher it was but im pretty sure somebody makes the argument that scientific paradigms were more social and/or political than rational or whatever.
>>24829025>Math has been used mostly for power.that's basically what i said, isn't it
>>24825199Euler could very easily have done what Schopenhauer did. Luckily for us, he decided to be useful instead.
>>24826001>i like schopenhauer because he thinks the world is pretty shitEuler thought this as well so it seems Euler was just as competent at philosophy as Schopenhauer.
>>24825176Why the fuck is this post so funny?I'm black and I've reread this post five times with hysterical tears of laughter in my eyes, wtf kek
>>24829361it's because of the fakeout at the end>you worship a system invented so niggers could trade cowrie shells for coconutsnot funny>you worship a system invented so niggers could trade cowrie shells for coconuts and, to a lesser extent, fishfunny
>>24824911>Aristotle i don't think so, In fact anyone from the greek is outdatedThis, it's telling that most modern "Platonists" seem to care more about Plotinus and most modern "Aristotelians" seem to care more about Aquinas
>>24829025This. How math or any subject is taught in the most boring, dumb and insipid way. Math like greek philosophy are extremely beautiful, they very much add and contribute to a good life. :)
that nigga would've been a goat chadfisher in the prime years of chadfishing
>>24824861>There is no mathematical maturityCalling it, passed multivariable calculus and filtered by introductory analysis/algebra
>>24829025Most people are not cut for math and that's why the cookie cutter approach was established. Math should be scratched from curricula and should be replaced by calculations. There should be a voluntary class for people who want to learn real math that allows dropping out without consequences such that people who see that they don't get it don't get stuck with it and pull down people who are capable
>>24824700>poodle fucker
>>24824700>The world as will and idea>ideaCringe
>>24830133Why can't you people think about mathematics outside of a school system, you are very shallow intellectually
Last night I had a glorious dream. I dreamed about a man who has always held a very special place in my heart, Kurt Gödel, except he wasn't a man, oh he was a godbeast of a thing, GÖDEL. I had always admired his work but now he appeared before me and I felt my heart swell with pride and joy at carrying on his work. He appeared as a quadratic function from my youth, all cut up and rearranged and full of variables oozing pus from every cut and blood dribbling from his infected derivative of a mouth. I was so scared but he hushed me and his form no longer disgusted me but filled me with beauty.GÖDEL stared into my soul and I saw his eyes dancing with Epsilon Noughts, just pouring out of there, and within his soul there danced a number just as great, that of f-1(7), equal to, if you calculate the infinities surrounding it, the Epsilon Nought. The void around us was black as ink and beautiful as night.He was naked, and offered himself to me. I could see his back, and it branched into a surreal number tree. He told me he loved us, and loved what we are doing. I could see the logic, A to B, as he spoke it and I saw that it was true. He offered himself to me and I entered within him. His penis was not a penis but a TI-84 and I fell to my knees weak at it. I melted into a factorization, and I sucked off the alephs until the sperm filled my mouth and dribbled down the smooth continous curve of the graph until it hit the limit and could go no further. The genetics within the sperm possessed divine instructions encoded in base-4. No sorry it wasn't divine it was not divine it was just sperm. It melded into our thoughts and I could see where STEM will be in the immediate future. The sperm is the life and we must preserve it. As we danced I watched fire catch the Dedekind hallows at the end of the number line, and Epsilon Nought stood there, dancing and singing f-1 (7) infinities onwards. He whispered something in my ear, gently, and I saw what I must do, what we all must do to achieve this forever. We calculated a child together.It was a wonderful dream, I would have liked to continue sleeping to continue dreaming it. Every child should be forced from birth to turn away from all else and find that same black void and howling orgasm inside the basis of a covalent bond.
>>24831079that better not be original by you
>>24831064>you are very shallow intellectuallyExtremely funny thing to accuse someone else of when you obviously have no clue how higher level math is done
>>24831112It's done by faggots who believe they can suck an infinite amount of dicks if given the choice axiomatically
>>24831212The least juvenile /lit/ user
>>24831212Nta, just study math
