...not like this....
Plato rolling around in his grave yet again
what a fucking weeni can think of a long timei can think of a long distanceall you need
>>25303794Damn right. All science and philosophy should be replaced with "uhhh i don't know, whatever man". What I'm saying right now is also subjective so take it or leave it, I don't care (actually I care a little bit but whatever).
>>25303794>in natureThat's your problem
>>25303794What about snowflakes?
>>25303964There are massive empty gaps within and in between molecules
>>25303794>in natureWasn't the whole point to artificially make perfect lines and circles?
>>25303794Literally moronic. Geometry can be clearly demonstrated and derived from a stick, a piece of string, and a small patch of dirt. Nietzsche was a dipshit
>>25304351But he generated many wonderful quotes!How can be wrong?
>no absolute magnitudeBut there are?
>>25304351Thanks for the specification, I thought at first he was being figuratively moronic.
>>25304366>>25304371He was nutter butters, figuratively speaking
>>25304379Damn, I could go for some nutter butters right now
>>25304351Lmao lil brainlet got filtered by one of the greatest minds of all time. Don't worry lil brobro it happens
>>25304351your argument presupposes exactly what Nietzsche is arguing about, "lines", "circles", they are abstractions we have come up with and understand not because we find lines or circle in the real world in a strict sense
>>25304351>i'm smart and i belong here
>wahhh, everything is so infinitesimally imperfectLiteral OCD.
>>25304381Wittgenstein was 100% correct when he said you can skip everything everyone after Aristotle >>25304382False>>25304385Et tu?
>>25304382A pulled string pretty much becomes a straight line. Still water becomes flat as well.
>>25304412>Wittgenstein was 100% correct when he saidDid you find that quote on goodreads, lil bro?
>>25304416No, I don’t use that site. Perhaps you should return there.
>>25304416>lil broGo back to tiktok
>>25303794>The study of structures would not have come into existance if we had known from the beginning that a few specific abstract structures didn't physically exist???>>25304381gluck gluck gluck
>>25304415>pretty muchthat's the point of Nietzsche, it's a "pretty much", an abstraction of something that isn't "just so", it's useful for sure, but that's also kind of the point, our senses are attuned for this kind of rapid intuition of overall consistent visual patterns within the field of vision, maths developed first on top of these intuitively(for human brains) patterns that however aren't per se in the worldif we hadn't followed these abstractions further on, blocked by a knowledge that after all they aren't really there, there wouldn't have been mathsNietzsche's point could even be interpreted positively in this sense
>>25303920Where is the "long distance", buddy? Show me "long time" floating around in nature.Naive retard.
>>25304412witt didn't read hamann or schelling so i dunno about all that, mostly correct though
>irregular curves don't exist in naturelolwut
>no absolute magnitudei have 5 fingerseziest debunk of my life
>>25303794>no absolute magnitudeHow dumb was he? This is like the first thing you learn in maths, magnitudes aren't absolute.
>>25303794>Nietzsche>MathematicsRequired reading before replying to this thread:>E. Steinhart “Nietzsche’s philosophy of mathematics, Int. Stud. Philos. 31, No. 3, 19–27 (1999; doi:10.5840/intstudphil199931348)https://sci-net.xyz/10.5840/intstudphil199931348>S.D. Hales “Nietzsche on logic”, Philos. Phenomenol. Res. 56, No. 4 819–835 (1996; doi:10.2307/2108282)https://sci-hub.ru/10.2307/2108282
>>25304412>Wittgenstein was 100% correct when he said you can skip everything everyone after AristotleWhat was everyone discussing in the time between them? Was it really just unimportant?
>>25304415kek, I made the exact same post three years ago
>>25304455Retarded. Just read Kant you fucking idiot. Nietzsche was not a philosopher, he was at best a third rate ranter and cultural critic who couldnt understand basic issues. Mathematics isn't derived from abstractions of sensory experience. If it were, it wouldn't produce necessity. My hypothesis that swans are white is derived from my sensory experience, but it does not carry with it necessity, ie I could easily change my mind upon seeing a black Swan. I'm never going to change my mind about the pythagorean theorem, I'm never going to encounter anything in sensory experience that refutes it.
>>25303794fpbp, I haven’t read nietzche since I was a teenager but as i’ve developed as a thinker I always credited him retrospectively with understanding (in a more fluid, intuitive, and godlike way) the stuff that heidegger later codified. but this makes me think he was fucking retarded
>>25305012It’s not so much that it was unimportant, it was for the intellectual development of the west, it’s more that it didn’t really add anything of consequence. It all just winds up being semantics and epistemological dead ends. Just my opinion obviously.
>>25303794This little soundbite comes from a thought of about a page length. He first talks about language a bit and says when language evolved people essentially had an exaggerated idea of its stature. Then he says:~Logic, too, rests on assumptions that do not correspond to anything in the real world, e.g., on the assumption of the equality of things, the identity of the same thing at different points of time; but this science arose from the opposite belief (that there were indeed such things in the real world). So it is with mathematics, which would certainly not have originated if it had been known from the beginning that there is no exactly straight line in nature, no real circle, no absolute measure.~This doesn't seem unreasonable to me. He's just saying that our limited perception — looking at the world in a fuzzy way — actually helped with evolving certain useful mental concepts.When human brains were evolving we experienced strings pulled taut and the surfaces of calm lakes and bunches of grapes and endless repetition (footsteps, breaths, days, nights, tiredness-sleep-waking, etc). These naturally gave us ideas of straight lines, flat planes, collections of identical objects, cause-and-effect, repeatable experiments. And these led us to geometry, arithmetic, logic, science, language which have proved very useful.>...not like this...Not sure what you mean by this. Do you think Nietzsche is dismissing or disparaging mathematics? The opposite if anything. He's saying: "Mathematics is amazing! Because of mathematics we have trains and printing presses and indoor plumbing! But it only came about because we were deluded. If we had seen reality in all its multifarious splendour from the start, we would just have sat around saying "Wow, man!" and never got anywhere."
>>25303794Didn't we invent mathematics precisely for these reasons? Straight lines and circles are perfect models that allow us to analyze imperfect reality without getting distracted by particulars. If I need to build a house it's useful to work out the perfect model and then try my best to match it
>>25305012Some made valiant efforts, especially Kant and Hume, and in valiant efforts it is glorious even to fail, but yeah anon is correct.
>>25303839Plato would've agreed to straight lines not existing in the natural universe. just instances that partake of it with natural accidents
>>25305018>Mathematics isn't derived from abstractions of sensory experience> I'm never going to change my mind about the pythagorean theorem, I'm never going to encounter anything in sensory experience that refutes it.>My hypothesis that swans are white is derived from my sensory experience, but it does not carry with it necessity, ie I could easily change my mind upon seeing a black Swan.The Pythagorean theorem is the white swan in your example. You can't change your mind about the theorem because all its definitions are pure abstractions that work in a circle, your real example should be "I can't change my hypothesis about white swans being white swans"
>>25305287Then that also debunks what Nietzsche said.
>>25304381That's not Euler.
>>25305018dunning kruger is strong with this onewhat you said is irrelevant to nietzsche's point; the point isn't the truthfulness or not of mathematical statements like pythagoras' theorem nor their utility, but that we wouldn't have played with these ideas if we had disregarded them from the start because there's no right angles, no straight lines, etc... in the visible world
>>25305222Measure twice, cut once.
>>25305369Bugman tier
