*filters 99% of IQfy*
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
*filters 99% of?
*filters 99% of IQfy*
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Geometry is alright I guess, but what does it have to do with literature?
Geometric intuitions can be used to more quickly understand complex argumentation.
Superficial and superfluous.
>y tho
>here's one reason
>no, not that one
Geometry is where we introduce formal logic to young minds. Remember all that homework doi g proofs? That was meant to teach you how to think clearly, calmly, and without wild leaps of faith. Necessary training for a critical thinker, and nobody else's opinion abouy anything, even "literature," is valid.
>need to learn geometry to enter the academy
>need to enter the academy to learn geometry
lolmao
>Remember all that homework doi g proofs?
No because mass education sucks balls (Dewey's fault). Teachers are uneducated dolts and the curriculum prioritises mindlessly copying formulas over developing relational understanding. Funnily enough most of my learning happened because I questioned whether my teachers were correct - when I asked 'why' something was true they could not explain it to me. They waved their hands and said I need not understand that. Naturally, I set to thinking about why their statements were true.
The earliest memory I have of this must have been when I was 5 or 6, and my teacher told me that two even numbers always add to an even number, two odd numbers always odd, and an even and odd always odd. It was presented as a fact without any of the beauty underlying why this fact should be true. Unacquainted with formal proof, I managed to convince myself of the fact by thinking of the numbers as two rows of blocks; evens never have a remainder but odds have one. From this basic intuition I understood the fact and no longer needed to remember it. The teacher, unacquainted with effective pedagogy, made no effort to show us why it was true, her notion of learning was to have us perform enough sums until magically an understanding of number developed (needless to say my classmates acted unthinkingly and hence never developed the same comprehension as I did).
The ability to think mathematically is related to the ability to read. Many people can do arithmetic but have no mathematical understanding. Many people are literate, but cannot read. If you do not make the effort to think about what you are reading, then you are not actually reading. In a like fashion, it is like a boomer falling asleep while watching TV. If one falls asleep while absorbing 'content', one is not expanding their brain, rather they are forfeiting its reasoning faculties to someone else. If you are ignorant of geometry, then there is a good chance that you have never made the effort to think about anything.
Books are rectangular or squarish, e-readers too. That means the pages are shaped the same, and the words have to fit within the dimensions of the page. Seriously, just use your head. Let me guess, you don’t know geometry?
>Books are rectangular or squarish
ahem. geometers btfo
Oh n-
>rectangular or squarish,
redundant. squares are rectangular jacckass
Literature is not just meaningless words on the paper, it's patterns and connections. Not just geometry and literature, however geometry was seen in the ancient days as the study of All, the study of forms that the world is composed of.
>Said to have been inscribed above the door of Plato's Academy.
I'm giggling imagining Plato actually saying that to be a giant sarcastic dick.
I think geometry was basically the first example of reason ever invented. Plato only came like 200 years after Thales. So this is basically a new thing and in fact most of the pre-socratics were mathematicians first so really mathematics and reason would not really be separate in their minds considering 200 years before nobody ever really thought about anything rigorously. Philosophy was basically saying what if we took this new thing from math and put it into theology and ethics
>considering 200 years before nobody ever really thought about anything rigorously.
what a moronic fricking post, you are an idiot
>le geometry
Πλάτων was αυτιστικός.
Plato and Socrates arguably fricked up philosophy and brought us to the clown society we live in today, so geometry is really not that important to know.
Only Platonic schizos would ever think learning about shapes has any real world value besides being a cool party trick
they have played us for ABSOLUTE FOOLS!
Shut the frick up, Nietzsche
this post is nearly as moronic, you are an idiot
>make academy
>inscribe "Let no-one below six feet in height enter"
>filter entirety of Greece
When I took geometry in high school I got an A and 100 percent on every assignment and test. I don’t remember it, but seems simple enough.
Btw he actually means astrology, harmonics and numerology, the geometry we know is just a prelude to those things
He could have been the most based philosopher of all time.
and what stopped him exactly?
he is simply not the foundation, but he laid the foundation. the whole thing was a huge mistake and a big problem.
Socrates
I am not really a math guy
No such thing
if you can't do even basic math like geometry, you simply can't (or don't want to) think
Put me down for "don't want to."
It's [current year], I can carry a calculator around with me everywhere I go and I won't even look like a clueless geek doing it.
Math isn't even real. We've been over this.
Show me 2 + 2 = 4 in the real world.
You can't because it's deranged nonsense.
II
II
IIII
III_
II - doesn't exist
III - doesn't exist
IIII - doesn't exist
Debunked, next
at least you showed IIII doesn't exist
Congratulations, you escaped the matrix
l li
ll l_
>Show me 2 + 2 = 4 in the real world.
If Sally had 2 carrots and Amy had 2 carrots, how many carrots did they have in total?
No such thing as "two" as everything can be broken down into containing smaller parts within.
In addition (ha ha) you can't ever add things because they remain separate from each other ontologically, and if they do add then they become "one".
She does not have two bananas
She has 1 bannana
And 1 bannana. But the "and" does not exist.
Nothing can ever be added.
Okay now try to explain to an individual you want them to grab you 2 bananas at the market while utilizing that autistic roundabout explanation.
I would utilize the fiction of "two" for convenience without believing in it as an actually real thing.
I could also just point at yellow thing
Then repeat evocatibely while grunting.
Lots of work arounds to escape from the mind prison of numbers.
/thread
How many hands do you have?
I reject the concept of a hand as the use of the article implied the existence of separable objects otherwise known as numbers.
>Said to have been inscribed above the door of Plato's academy.
It's his own academy, Plato should know what it said.
He didn't know greek.
>But he was le ancient le greek
Maybe, but he is quoted in modern english not in ancient greek.
QED
>be me: BA in Mathematics haver, MS in Mathematics (Cryptology), PhD in progress (Cryptology)
Evenin' boys. Reading anything interesting today? I don't have much free time, but I've been slowly reading through CAS short stories when I am sitting on the toilet.
>cryptology
Plato was such a hack lol
It was an egyptians thing and what became later known as freemasonry
>he didn't know about the Irish druids bringing all this knowledge from Hyperborea (AKA "Hibernia" in Latin)
It's okay, only aristocrats are supposed to even deal with symbolism and representation in this way anyways. Just go back to work/bed/drink, anon.
Yeah I did know about potatoes causing solanine hallucinations
i understood geometry when I was like 13 , NOT that hard
Frick Plato read Spinoza
SUCK MY DICK!
any geometry recs? preferably classical ie euclid
A geometrical deffinition is a complete determination (= the integral determination of an actual object). Geometry is the basis of logic thought, and therefore something you'd know before you try to approach the integral determination of the world beyond the actual sphere of appearances (or of things in themselves).
I haven't "read" (looked at) any manga in a very long time but I've always had this vague desire to read Blame! It looks cool as frick and there's this one panel showing staircases which is basically a ripoff of an early nightmarish drawing/painting by HR Giger, showing very dangerous looking stairs along the walls of a massive vertical void, a non-penile black shaft which is not the positive space of a penis, but the negative space of an open shaft of air bordered by very large, poorly lit walls. I actually gave myself an acute sting of vertigo just now in writing about it.
Blame is good, you should read it if you thought it looked cool.
Description is integral to determination and geometrical determination cannot include all aspects of an object, and especially not even the most important.
>geometrical determination cannot include all aspects of an object
It does, since objects are reductions (even for the greeks).
>and especially not even the most important
That's why you are supposed to know geometry first, in order to know how to use the intellect to think what's not reducible to a geometrical determination.
Geometry is a midway point between the Idea and human life. Through comparison, especially as Greeks understood it after Pythagoras, it leads one up, but should never be conflated with the Idea itself.
I want to report you so badly but I cannot in good faith ask for your thread to be deleted.
"mathematical intuition" is just autism aka dysgenic.
Back then geometry was middle-school level.
They teach geometry in elementary school, anon.
LMFAO
Geometry translated into the material world is difficult as you can never get accurate measurements as a human being.
However in the ideal world of forms it is entirely possible to add and subtract things and pursue geometry.
T. I have a atheist civil engineer stepdad
Geometry in the Platonic Academy was used to elevate the soul beyond corporeal senses and toward what is purely intelligible and numinous. I.e, the fullness of mathematical forms. In this way Platonism and Philosophy defined by Plato is really a mystical esoteric school of classical paganism, a rationalistic version of other mystery cults. There isn't that much difference at all from Plato and Pythagoras
>Geometry in the Platonic Academy was used to elevate the soul beyond corporeal senses and toward what is purely intelligible and numinous
There is no evidence of how mathematics was used in the Academy during Plato's life.
I'm not gonna watch your bullshit shill video.
>except the dialogues where Plato literally lays out why and how you should associate with purely transcendent mathematical forms in order to distance the soul from contamination with the world of process
ok moron
A teaching program in dialogues != the teaching program of the Academy, moron, there's literally no evidence of what was taught there, how, and for what purpose. Its start was literally just as a gentleman's club for Socrates' surviving followers.
>the Academy, a philosophical institution ran by Plato totally did NOT teach Plato's philosophical pedagogy laid out in Republic and the Dialogues were definitely not a basic introductory corpus for said institution
This is some A grade dishonest naivete. ACKSHUALLY some more, idiot. I guess Plato totally did not try to teach the tyrant of Syracuse his philosophical syllabus as well, because we don't have the 100% preserved particular example of what he taught him.
...i... that is totally fine
Congratulations. You're 'tarded. Certified hylic moment
>This is some A grade dishonest naivete. ACKSHUALLY some more, idiot. I guess Plato totally did not try to teach the tyrant of Syracuse his philosophical syllabus as well, because we don't have the 100% preserved particular example of what he taught him.
No it isn't, what's moronic is asserting as fact a totally speculative education for the Academy, of which we strictly know the following from contemporary sources: 1) The dialogues were read outside the Academy enough for 4th century comic poets to make fun of elements from Sophist, Phaedrus, and the Republic; 2) that Plato once gave a speech on the Good open to the public and people left out of confusion; and 3) rhetoric and geometry were discussed by the Academicians and gymnastics were practiced. What no one knows is whether and how the dialogues were used, whether anything was taught formally, and if there was in fact any curriculum whatsoever.
Your allusion to the Seventh Letter doesn't help you, Plato says:
>Therefore, I pondered the matter and was in two minds as to whether I ought to listen to entreaties and go, or how I ought to act; and finally the scale turned in favour of the view that, if ever anyone was to try to carry out in practice *my ideas about laws and constitutions,* now was the time for making the attempt; for *if only I could fully convince one man,* I should have secured thereby the accomplishment of all good things.
This is not the same as a transformation of Syracuse into the cities of either the Republic nor Laws, nor is it focused on the education of many, nor does anything in the Seventh Letter suggest he would teach Dionysius the education of the philosopher-kings. Plato also didn't hold any illusions about what would be in store for him, and thought it more likely that almost only Dion would be benefitted:
>*My own opinion, so far as the young men were concerned,* and the probable line which their conduct would take, was full of apprehension—for young men are quick in forming desires, which often take directions conflicting with one another. But *I knew that the character of Dion’s mind* was naturally a stable one and had also the advantage of somewhat advanced years.
And
>I took my departure, therefore, acting, so far as a man can act, in obedience to reason and justice, and for these reasons leaving my own occupations, which were certainly not discreditable ones, to put myself under a tyranny *which did not seem likely to harmonise* with my teaching or with myself.
Git gud and read more.
Non-sequitor: the post.
The dialogues were formalised as an introduction to the Platonic schools of philosophy, whether the Academy or the Alexandrian school, or any other of the later Platonists. To assert Plato in his Academy, a philosophical institution under his tutelage, would not wield the central themes of the Dialogues - like in Republic concerning mathematical tuition and geometry in the ascent of the soul beyond process is absurd, and completely moronic. Unless you're going to be a Straussian and make an actually moronic assertion that Plato was just trolling, bro, and in that case, well - you are far more speculative and deviant from actual traditions of Platonism that sprung up throughout the entire classical world.
You've made a clever, sophistic attempt to shift the matter of the Dialogues as a purely particular historical artefact, rather than a set of principles that are just a hint of the fuller Platonist worldview. Plato obviously would promulgate the most core aspects of what he obviously found important enough to dedicate to text (reluctantly) in whatever role of authority he was in. You are a colossally naive moron if you think he wouldn't teach his philosophy to his philosophy students. But you aren't naive. You're a dishonest pedant.
>This is not the same as a transformation of Syracuse into the cities of either the Republic nor Laws, nor is it focused on the education of many, nor does anything in the Seventh Letter suggest he would teach Dionysius the education of the philosopher-kings. Plato also didn't hold any illusions about what would be in store for him, and thought it more likely that almost only Dion would be benefitted:
Doesn't follow. This is PURE speculation on your part, again, you are far more speculative, but your speculation does not follow and is utterly moronic. Plato, the philosopher who idealized the philosopher king as the aim of the world, goes to Sicily to give philosophical training to the tyrant's brother-in-law, and offer philosophical argument to persuade the king, totally did NOT utilise ANY of his own philosophy (laid out in short in his dialogues) to try bring about as close as could be accomplished of this goal.
>I took my departure, therefore, acting, so far as a man can act, in obedience to reason and justice, and for these reasons leaving my own occupations, which were certainly not discreditable ones, to put myself under a tyranny *which did not seem likely to harmonise* with my teaching or with myself.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from this quote at all either. This is the best you could cherry pick. Plato taking the slim chance out of virtuous duty to TRY to sway a king or at least his powerful court toward philosophy = not offering philosophical training like he proscribes for prospective rulers in his dialogues.
You can't read.
Lol the seethe and cope are amazing.
>The dialogues were formalised as an introduction to the Platonic schools of philosophy, whether the Academy or the Alexandrian school, or any other of the later Platonists.
Weasel wording. They were "formalised as an introduction" much later, and formalised differently at that, the skeptical Academy emphasizing aporetic dialogues, Thrasyllus ordering them in tetralogies, and the Neoplatonists from Iamblicus onward reading the latter's set order. There's only evidence that the dialogues were read at all, that they were read both in and outside of the Academy, with no information about whether they were used in a structured way, and if so, what that structure amounted to. You're speculating.
>To assert Plato in his Academy... would not wield the central themes of the Dialogues...is absurd, and completely moronic.
No, and there's a crucial difference between discussing the subjects of the dialogues and using them as textbooks, or inferring, absent any contemporary evidence, that the education outlined in the Republic was used as a curriculum. Speculation.
>You are a colossally naive moron if you think he wouldn't teach his philosophy to his philosophy students.
You're a colossal moron if you think the author of the Seventh Letter, and a student of a victim of political persecution, would just open his mouth and spill his spaghetti all over any paying mouthbreather.
>Doesn't follow. This is PURE speculation on your part, again, you are far more speculative, but your speculation does not follow and is utterly moronic. Plato, the philosopher who idealized the philosopher king as the aim of the world, goes to Sicily to give philosophical training to the tyrant's brother-in-law, and offer philosophical argument to persuade the king, totally did NOT utilise ANY of his own philosophy (laid out in short in his dialogues) to try bring about as close as could be accomplished of this goal.
Ah, the classic "don't you quote Plato at me supporting what you're saying by his downplaying the feasibility and scope of what he thought he could accomplish in Syracuse" gambit. The man says plainly what I ascribed and no more as I pointed out, but you're so emotionally attached to numinous mysticism and traditions dating centuries later that direct evidence is meaningless.
>Plato taking the slim chance out of virtuous duty to TRY to sway a king or at least his powerful court toward philosophy = not offering philosophical training like he proscribes for prospective rulers in his dialogues.
Speculation, entirely on your part. He says he's going to go advise on laws and regimes, and all of a sudden it means he's going to teach geometry to Dionysius to ascend to a philosopher-king.
>You can't read.
Reading is wasted on you. Bk. V of the Republic already bothers to tell Glaucon to stop demanding the city be actual, and bk. IX ends with the conclusion that political actualization is besides the point. Way to miss it.
>Lol the seethe and cope are amazing.
i was allowed to buy this book
Lmfao. It took you all that time to post this non-response? Thanks for conceding everything.
>knowledge of geometry in 350BC
Far be it from me to disparage the ancients, but isn't that a month's study worth at the most?
It's surprisingly deep. And we have evidence now that the Greeks didn't even invent it, but merely carried it forward from older civilizations. More and more fragments from the bronze age show that civilizations like Middle Kingdom Egypt or Old Babylon clearly understood geometric math, even stuff like Pythagoras's theorem, more than 1000 years before Pythagoras was born.
Thanks anon
Get fricked IQfy
Shoutout to my homie Cicero
How do I go about learning math as an adult? I've forgotten basically everything from school.
Basic Mathematical Logic
-> Basic Geometry
-> Basic Algebra
-> Basic Calculus
Then rinse an repeat from the start for their intermediate versions, then again for their advanced versions, then Analysis (and then you can learn applied mathematics like Probability & Statistics).
Khan Academy goes down to elementary school level math. Complete the algebra and geometry sections. Then move onto a rigorous "meme" book like Serge Lang's Basic Mathematics. Strengthen your trigonometry and algebra skills as much as you possibly can and calculus will be incredibly easy. DO ALL THE EXERCISES!
>uhh see this circle what if you drew a line through it
lol a real mathematician you are Plato
whoa meta af
NOT ME, gay. I STUDIED GEOMETRY.
fine, i'll concede. here's how to make you look bad.