this! so much this, comradesister! also, friendly reminder that you need to dilate twice each day for a minimum of 15 minutes, just as your doctor prescribed!
whats the real point he's making? this is almost certainly an argument in support of the assertion that knowledge of man's fundamental meaninglessness paralyzes his spirit or some such idea
i think he just means that math is based on abstractions, and no abstraction is perfectly realized. To take these abstractions seriously you have to ignore your own observations of the world.
I guess after all it's just a matter of opinion, right? I mean who cares what color the sky is or whether water is a liquid or gas or solid. Like frick it, its all a bunch of baloney
I think what he means is that nature isn't divisible, at least not in the same way "100" is. Nature is a flow of intensities and our experience of it is fundamentally qualitative. We have to abstract from our perceptions in order to "do" math.
Also in order to, say, count a group of people, we have to conceive of "person" as a unit, when we could just as well count a group of limbs, a group of hair, a group of exhalations, etc.
The problem with Nietzsche is people take aphorisms out of context from him and give whatever interpretation they want without reading the actual work and trying to understand what he actually means
Interpretations depend on contexts. You can obviously interpret an aphorism without having read the book, but you're not working with the same context as those who are referencing the book.
>There is no context only interpretations
Only if you're a moron >INB4.. NOOOOB UT NIETZSCHE SAID
Nietzsche never said there is no context. He was a philologist , you moron. That's the whole point of philology.
Mathematics is not real, but it is certain and it is what gives man the possibility of meaning. Like pillars sustaining the temple of knowledge, mathematics stand as the foundations of a solid epistemology, unshakeable pillars as they are, but we know what they are made of, or most importantly, we know they are constructed. This is where Platonism finds its ground, as if methametical axioms, the One and Good stands as Principle, and multiplicity as what follows from unity.
Humans created meaning for themselves before they created "a solid epistemology." >multiplicity as what follows from unity
You could just as well conceive of unity as following from multiplicity.
Yes, but I'm just going to the point where humans become aware of a need for a scientific foundation as valid epistemological ground. If we go back it is even more interesting how there is a certain intimacy between the sciences and the ''primitive'' mechanisms (religious fables, etc., which if on the one hand math is also a creation, on the other hand these fables and superstitions are true and real for the fact that they work).
>unity as following from multiplicity
Sure, but as an epistemological ground there needs to be an axiomatic, apodictic principle for such a scientific procedure, hence the parallel with unity (as in a Principle for Platonic and Aristotelian metaphysics), and you could also transpose it to a point.
>You could just as well conceive of unity as following from multiplicity.
How? Have you read any of Zeno's problems? Unity can only follow from multiplicity logically, ie examining multiplicity and determining what it is resolved into. Metaphysically, unity cannot be derived from multiplicity in substance without incurring paradoxes of infinity (some of Zeno's paradoxes, not however the well known Achilles paradox), however in essence multiplicity requires unity to be multiple, as a multiple is always derived from its base (to know multiples one must know ones, to know one, one does not need to know multiples). This broaches on the topic of prime numbers, because the existence of primes shows the basic necessity of one (the number divided by itself) as its base. All numbers which are not primes can be resolved into either primes, which are then resolved into unities. Primes are unique in that they are the closest numbers to one, despite being potentially infinitely removed from the one in terms of pure magnitude.
Multiplicity does not need to be composed of distinct units/elements. Consider a gradient. It is different at every point but is not composed of points.
Most of the Nietzschegays on this board have never read his Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense (ironically the first thing by him they teach in college) and it absolutely shows
>took this long into the thread for someone to point this out
newbies need to learn not to post if they don't know what the frick they're talking about
He endorses the transcendental aesthetic in this essay which he completely changes his stance on later in his works. Definitely not a good place to start for his final thought, unless you're going chronologically along with Birth of Tragedy. The reason it's given first in college is likely just because it is relatively simple and touches superficially on a bunch of issues that are considered important in philosophy in general.
No, the part I was referring to was around page 6 or 7. It's closer to the end of the essay than the beginning. He does mention it more than in that one place though. >the broader point of the essay contextualizes his statement on math here
You mean where he states that maths is an a priori form of intuition? That's not exactly the same sentiment as was stated in the OP. All of the arguments against truth in that essay refer to concepts that are not mathematical, ie genera that abstract from concrete perceptions, as opposed to mathematical constructs which he says are the intuitions of quantity which structure experience. Overall it's very Kantian/Schopenhauerian, just like BoT.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I don't recall him saying math is an a priori form of intuition in the essay, but it's been a while since I've read it. But the gist of the essay is that it's an attack on Platonic Forms and abstractions, no? The general idea is that these things are derived from patterns that exist in the chaos of becoming, but they do not really "exist." Geometric constructions, which never perfectly exist in the real world, are a classic example of this
I'm checking it again now and yeah I don't know what the frick you're talking about >But everything marvelous about the laws of nature, everything that quite astonishes
us therein and seems to demand explanation, everything that might lead us to distrust
idealism: all this is completely and solely contained within the mathematical strictness and
inviolability of our representations of time and space. But we produce these representations in
and from ourselves with the same necessity with which the spider spins. If we are forced to
comprehend all things only under these forms, then it ceases to be amazing that in all things
we actually comprehend nothing but these forms. For they must all bear within themselves the
laws of number, and it is precisely number which is most astonishing in things. All that
conformity to law, which impresses us so much in the movement of the stars and in chemical
processes, coincides at bottom with those properties which we bring to things. Thus it is we
who impress ourselves in this way.
Is he not saying mathematics is a construction here?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>all this is completely and solely contained within the mathematical strictness and inviolability of our representations of time and space
This is called the transcendental aesthetic. That's not even the exact part I was referencing, but that works well enough. It both refutes the first point in the quote about "mathematics not coming into existence if...", and the association of mathematics with sensible objects.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>But we produce these representations in >and from ourselves with the same necessity with which the spider spins.
I know, read the next sentence brah, he's arguing against it
neetshie is correct. the boundary between math and nature is engineering, and you'll find that most fields therein are overwhelmingly empirical. ideal mathematics are very difficult to map onto reality beyond basic conservation-of-energy style arithmetic.
What’s his point here? Everyone knows you can’t be completely exact. That’s why math is supposed to be the IDEAL so you get as close as possible. What a fricking moron bet he though he was so smart saying that. KEHMHEHEHEHE GO CRY TO THE HORSE BAAHAHHAHA
Yeah so to speak but since we found that space is non Euclidean, the actual geometry of nature follows something drastically different from what it appears, triangles for example do not have 180 degrees of angles but only seem so to our perceptional faculties
Yet our thoughts and abstractions are as a part of nature as the trees, the stars and grey concrete.
Absolute magnitudes exist, tangible or not, there's nothing in nature that is "unnatural".
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/speculative-musings/mathematics-and-the-russian-doll-structure-of-like-the-whole-universe/
"The great debate in mathematics, for instance, is between the constructivists (formalists) and the Platonists, those who see mathematics as an artifact of the human brain, and those who think it’s a kind of conceptual perception, a way of grasping things that exist independently of the mind.
The question boils down into whether there’s any mathematics absent our experience of it. The prior question should be whether there’s any such thing as mathematics as we *experience* it at all. What if mathematics *as we experience it* is neither constructed nor discovered, but *imposed* by the severe structural and developmental constraints faced by the thalamocortical system?"
"From a metaphysical standpoint, the idea would be that the universe possesses a Russian Doll structure, that *what we perceive* as ‘structures’ are conserved and recapitulated across vast differences in scale.
A neurostructural recapitulation is simply a neural circuit, distributed or not, that is capable of interacting with intermediary systems so as to enable systematic interaction with some other structure. You could just as easily say that the recapitulation is distributed across the entire system, and that each recapitulation harnesses circuits shared with all other recapitulations. In this sense, the brain could be seen as a *recapitulation* machine, one capable of morphing into innumerable, behaviour-to-environment calibrating *keys*. In this sense, there need be no ‘one’ representation: differentiating fragments could be *condensed*, waiting to be ‘unzipped’ in a time of need. There need be no isomorphism between recapitulation and recapitulated, simply because of the role of process. In all likelihood, recapitulations are *amoebic*, dynamically forming and reforming themselves as needed."
Mathematics as a word refered to non-numerical sciences from the Egyptian God Maat, I believe.
Algebra, the claim of cretins to be intelligent, refers to the breaking and setting of bones in plaster and comes from Arabia; which is a good metaphor for what continuous study of numbers actually does to a persons brain.
Relying on numbers above actual data doesn't produce anything; the bankruptcy of the contemporary united states which is numerical-centric demonstrates how mere numbers does not equate to knowledge of anything in the real world.
Numbers are often touted as a pseudo-science in their own right; the hyper-fixation on numbers being demonstrable in divination in mysticism beingnot at all different from stock market gambling or just gambling in general - in addition, no pun intended, to the baseless claim that numbers have other magical meanings and can be used to encode, decode and make-up prophecies from the various holy books.
I would agree that basic addition and subtraction and limited multiplication is a useful basic skill, and that there is a place in bomb science for people who know how to make artillery work, but beyond this..? Obviously mathematics became irrelevant the moment pocket calculators came into being, allowing anybody to perform these clown antics without needing to dedicate their entire life to the study of it as some abstract other worldly thing or even as some kind super science.
Bearing in mind under the Roman Quadrivium and Trivium a child would have mastered these university graduate doctorate level skills probably around the age of 8 or 9 and moved onto more practical subjects that were are use to themselves and the society.. such as Law, Rhetoric, Military Artillery, Engineering, Slave Management, Hedonism, etc.
I mean, this was my view of maths as a child and it's never been disproved, since I have always had access to a calculator, that the thing has been a waste of time since it was introduced into the first public schools in the 19th century and snowballed into this arabic bone-setting ideology. It's like we're not allowed to use Nuclear Power and are forced to make do with sticks and a bit of flint, or something, in every single engagementin the most impractical manner, by forbidding the use of a calculator. When we live in space stations perhaps it'll be thought of as worthwhile for our time to inhale oxygen from balloons because to use air filtration pumps in the space station would be 'cheating' somehow.
another homosexual getting lost in the concequences of his moronic self selected axioms instead of peering in the mind of god . Thank us for dirac functions and field theory and if you still have any grey matter left learn some physical mathematics. Also how the frick can i understand category theory ?
> Language would certainly have not come into existence if one had known from the beginning that there was in nature no such thing as "good", no "not", no 'is", no "hello", no "thank you", no "sneed", no "based", no "Nietzsche is homosexual loser moron", no "sex", no "meds".
This reminds me of a quotation by A. N. Whitehead:
>"Philosophers, when they have possessed a thorough knowledge of mathematics, have been among those who have enriched the science with some of its best ideas. On the other hand, it must be said that, with hardly an exception, all remarks on mathematics made by those philosophers who have possessed but a slight or hasty and late-acquired knowledge of it, are entirely worthless, being either trivial or wrong."
It's a good refutation of Nietzsche to be sure, considering he never properly ventured into mathematics and failed all of his early school classes in it.
Its not a good refutation, its just a statement. FYI im far from a Nietche gay, but the catagory of "refutation" shouldnt be applied here. its a truism.
More against your termonology rather than saying the above statement is false outright.
Communism isn’t real.
I’m beginning to think this homosexual was stupid guys
lol yeah I think so
Uhh... nietzchesisters?
tbh he was right about this one, mathematics as a subject was invented by the proto-capitalist classes of antiquity to oppress the proletariat
this guy gets it
glad you agree it is the patriarchal, aristocatic class that is always responsible for creative power
this! so much this, comradesister! also, friendly reminder that you need to dilate twice each day for a minimum of 15 minutes, just as your doctor prescribed!
whats the real point he's making? this is almost certainly an argument in support of the assertion that knowledge of man's fundamental meaninglessness paralyzes his spirit or some such idea
i think he just means that math is based on abstractions, and no abstraction is perfectly realized. To take these abstractions seriously you have to ignore your own observations of the world.
Do you know the history of mathematics? It isn't real but believing it to be realer than real spurred it's development
His point is the same as Protagoras'.
I think this doesn't have to do much with math as it has to do with Nietzsche's perspectivism. IF YOU HAD READ HIM, YOU WOULD GET THE REFERENCE.
I see him as essentially praising nature for its imperfections and finding value in the worlds bumps and bruises
i see him as a weak b***h ass homosexual homie who couldn't get laid and shitpost on public consciousness
I guess after all it's just a matter of opinion, right? I mean who cares what color the sky is or whether water is a liquid or gas or solid. Like frick it, its all a bunch of baloney
I think what he means is that nature isn't divisible, at least not in the same way "100" is. Nature is a flow of intensities and our experience of it is fundamentally qualitative. We have to abstract from our perceptions in order to "do" math.
Also in order to, say, count a group of people, we have to conceive of "person" as a unit, when we could just as well count a group of limbs, a group of hair, a group of exhalations, etc.
math is one of the few fields where Platonism is still mainstream
The problem with Nietzsche is people take aphorisms out of context from him and give whatever interpretation they want without reading the actual work and trying to understand what he actually means
There is no context only interpretations
Interpretations depend on contexts. You can obviously interpret an aphorism without having read the book, but you're not working with the same context as those who are referencing the book.
>There is no context only interpretations
Only if you're a moron
>INB4.. NOOOOB UT NIETZSCHE SAID
Nietzsche never said there is no context. He was a philologist , you moron. That's the whole point of philology.
NOOOOB UT NIETZSCHE SAID
Dilate troony
The context is itself only an interpretation.
Mathematics is not real, but it is certain and it is what gives man the possibility of meaning. Like pillars sustaining the temple of knowledge, mathematics stand as the foundations of a solid epistemology, unshakeable pillars as they are, but we know what they are made of, or most importantly, we know they are constructed. This is where Platonism finds its ground, as if methametical axioms, the One and Good stands as Principle, and multiplicity as what follows from unity.
Humans created meaning for themselves before they created "a solid epistemology."
>multiplicity as what follows from unity
You could just as well conceive of unity as following from multiplicity.
Yes, but I'm just going to the point where humans become aware of a need for a scientific foundation as valid epistemological ground. If we go back it is even more interesting how there is a certain intimacy between the sciences and the ''primitive'' mechanisms (religious fables, etc., which if on the one hand math is also a creation, on the other hand these fables and superstitions are true and real for the fact that they work).
>unity as following from multiplicity
Sure, but as an epistemological ground there needs to be an axiomatic, apodictic principle for such a scientific procedure, hence the parallel with unity (as in a Principle for Platonic and Aristotelian metaphysics), and you could also transpose it to a point.
>You could just as well conceive of unity as following from multiplicity.
How? Have you read any of Zeno's problems? Unity can only follow from multiplicity logically, ie examining multiplicity and determining what it is resolved into. Metaphysically, unity cannot be derived from multiplicity in substance without incurring paradoxes of infinity (some of Zeno's paradoxes, not however the well known Achilles paradox), however in essence multiplicity requires unity to be multiple, as a multiple is always derived from its base (to know multiples one must know ones, to know one, one does not need to know multiples). This broaches on the topic of prime numbers, because the existence of primes shows the basic necessity of one (the number divided by itself) as its base. All numbers which are not primes can be resolved into either primes, which are then resolved into unities. Primes are unique in that they are the closest numbers to one, despite being potentially infinitely removed from the one in terms of pure magnitude.
Multiplicity does not need to be composed of distinct units/elements. Consider a gradient. It is different at every point but is not composed of points.
Rather, it’s composed of infinite points.
Dude I can't run faster than the turtle! The turtle is already 100 meters ahead!
Most of the Nietzschegays on this board have never read his Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense (ironically the first thing by him they teach in college) and it absolutely shows
>took this long into the thread for someone to point this out
newbies need to learn not to post if they don't know what the frick they're talking about
He endorses the transcendental aesthetic in this essay which he completely changes his stance on later in his works. Definitely not a good place to start for his final thought, unless you're going chronologically along with Birth of Tragedy. The reason it's given first in college is likely just because it is relatively simple and touches superficially on a bunch of issues that are considered important in philosophy in general.
that's one small part of the essay in the intro, the broader point of the essay contextualizes his statement on math here
No, the part I was referring to was around page 6 or 7. It's closer to the end of the essay than the beginning. He does mention it more than in that one place though.
>the broader point of the essay contextualizes his statement on math here
You mean where he states that maths is an a priori form of intuition? That's not exactly the same sentiment as was stated in the OP. All of the arguments against truth in that essay refer to concepts that are not mathematical, ie genera that abstract from concrete perceptions, as opposed to mathematical constructs which he says are the intuitions of quantity which structure experience. Overall it's very Kantian/Schopenhauerian, just like BoT.
I don't recall him saying math is an a priori form of intuition in the essay, but it's been a while since I've read it. But the gist of the essay is that it's an attack on Platonic Forms and abstractions, no? The general idea is that these things are derived from patterns that exist in the chaos of becoming, but they do not really "exist." Geometric constructions, which never perfectly exist in the real world, are a classic example of this
I'm checking it again now and yeah I don't know what the frick you're talking about
>But everything marvelous about the laws of nature, everything that quite astonishes
us therein and seems to demand explanation, everything that might lead us to distrust
idealism: all this is completely and solely contained within the mathematical strictness and
inviolability of our representations of time and space. But we produce these representations in
and from ourselves with the same necessity with which the spider spins. If we are forced to
comprehend all things only under these forms, then it ceases to be amazing that in all things
we actually comprehend nothing but these forms. For they must all bear within themselves the
laws of number, and it is precisely number which is most astonishing in things. All that
conformity to law, which impresses us so much in the movement of the stars and in chemical
processes, coincides at bottom with those properties which we bring to things. Thus it is we
who impress ourselves in this way.
Is he not saying mathematics is a construction here?
>all this is completely and solely contained within the mathematical strictness and inviolability of our representations of time and space
This is called the transcendental aesthetic. That's not even the exact part I was referencing, but that works well enough. It both refutes the first point in the quote about "mathematics not coming into existence if...", and the association of mathematics with sensible objects.
>But we produce these representations in
>and from ourselves with the same necessity with which the spider spins.
I know, read the next sentence brah, he's arguing against it
What a c**t. This is real?
neetshie is correct. the boundary between math and nature is engineering, and you'll find that most fields therein are overwhelmingly empirical. ideal mathematics are very difficult to map onto reality beyond basic conservation-of-energy style arithmetic.
There is at least one actual circle: Nietzsche's reasoning.
What’s his point here? Everyone knows you can’t be completely exact. That’s why math is supposed to be the IDEAL so you get as close as possible. What a fricking moron bet he though he was so smart saying that. KEHMHEHEHEHE GO CRY TO THE HORSE BAAHAHHAHA
>math is real because... BECAUSE I SAID SO OK?
YOU STUPID…. I WAS SAYING MATH IS FAKE AND ITS OBVIOUS AND HES STUPID FOR POINTING IT OUT BECAUSE ITS OBVIOus
You are illiterate!!!!
You stupid I frick your mother and granddaughter and whole family!!!!!
Except geometry is found everywhere in nature and humans literally trace fractal patterns with their gait whenever they walk
Yeah so to speak but since we found that space is non Euclidean, the actual geometry of nature follows something drastically different from what it appears, triangles for example do not have 180 degrees of angles but only seem so to our perceptional faculties
yes, but hyperbolic/eliptic geometries are a thing
Show me a 90 degree angle in nature
Okay moron
Where's the right angle? I just see a bunch of colors.
Are you sure that's exactly 90 degrees and not 89.99 recurring?
Borrow money from someone who says maths isnt real and lay them less than they’re owed.
Yet our thoughts and abstractions are as a part of nature as the trees, the stars and grey concrete.
Absolute magnitudes exist, tangible or not, there's nothing in nature that is "unnatural".
One of his most embarassing moments. The pseudo Aristotlean thinking he can simply solve this ancient debate by fiat.
absolutely correct.
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/speculative-musings/mathematics-and-the-russian-doll-structure-of-like-the-whole-universe/
"The great debate in mathematics, for instance, is between the constructivists (formalists) and the Platonists, those who see mathematics as an artifact of the human brain, and those who think it’s a kind of conceptual perception, a way of grasping things that exist independently of the mind.
The question boils down into whether there’s any mathematics absent our experience of it. The prior question should be whether there’s any such thing as mathematics as we *experience* it at all. What if mathematics *as we experience it* is neither constructed nor discovered, but *imposed* by the severe structural and developmental constraints faced by the thalamocortical system?"
"From a metaphysical standpoint, the idea would be that the universe possesses a Russian Doll structure, that *what we perceive* as ‘structures’ are conserved and recapitulated across vast differences in scale.
A neurostructural recapitulation is simply a neural circuit, distributed or not, that is capable of interacting with intermediary systems so as to enable systematic interaction with some other structure. You could just as easily say that the recapitulation is distributed across the entire system, and that each recapitulation harnesses circuits shared with all other recapitulations. In this sense, the brain could be seen as a *recapitulation* machine, one capable of morphing into innumerable, behaviour-to-environment calibrating *keys*. In this sense, there need be no ‘one’ representation: differentiating fragments could be *condensed*, waiting to be ‘unzipped’ in a time of need. There need be no isomorphism between recapitulation and recapitulated, simply because of the role of process. In all likelihood, recapitulations are *amoebic*, dynamically forming and reforming themselves as needed."
/thread
>math... isn’t... real
It's true though.
Math is a mind tool.
Mind is the most real thing though, therefore maths is real.
Yeah, it became real when some nerd invented it.
This is what nietzche wanted to say.
based
>sneedsche
>caring about what is real
I will dedicate my life to thinking about abstract math and make all of you seethe. You're no better than physicists.
i WILL stop you
No you won't
>math isn't real!!11!
and?
you morons are the ones moaning about how school doesn't teach us taxes
science can't be real either tbh. see epistemology
well there are a few valid points to this,
Mathematics as a word refered to non-numerical sciences from the Egyptian God Maat, I believe.
Algebra, the claim of cretins to be intelligent, refers to the breaking and setting of bones in plaster and comes from Arabia; which is a good metaphor for what continuous study of numbers actually does to a persons brain.
Relying on numbers above actual data doesn't produce anything; the bankruptcy of the contemporary united states which is numerical-centric demonstrates how mere numbers does not equate to knowledge of anything in the real world.
Numbers are often touted as a pseudo-science in their own right; the hyper-fixation on numbers being demonstrable in divination in mysticism beingnot at all different from stock market gambling or just gambling in general - in addition, no pun intended, to the baseless claim that numbers have other magical meanings and can be used to encode, decode and make-up prophecies from the various holy books.
I would agree that basic addition and subtraction and limited multiplication is a useful basic skill, and that there is a place in bomb science for people who know how to make artillery work, but beyond this..? Obviously mathematics became irrelevant the moment pocket calculators came into being, allowing anybody to perform these clown antics without needing to dedicate their entire life to the study of it as some abstract other worldly thing or even as some kind super science.
Bearing in mind under the Roman Quadrivium and Trivium a child would have mastered these university graduate doctorate level skills probably around the age of 8 or 9 and moved onto more practical subjects that were are use to themselves and the society.. such as Law, Rhetoric, Military Artillery, Engineering, Slave Management, Hedonism, etc.
I mean, this was my view of maths as a child and it's never been disproved, since I have always had access to a calculator, that the thing has been a waste of time since it was introduced into the first public schools in the 19th century and snowballed into this arabic bone-setting ideology. It's like we're not allowed to use Nuclear Power and are forced to make do with sticks and a bit of flint, or something, in every single engagementin the most impractical manner, by forbidding the use of a calculator. When we live in space stations perhaps it'll be thought of as worthwhile for our time to inhale oxygen from balloons because to use air filtration pumps in the space station would be 'cheating' somehow.
Nich is one of my favorite overrated qualmists.
another homosexual getting lost in the concequences of his moronic self selected axioms instead of peering in the mind of god . Thank us for dirac functions and field theory and if you still have any grey matter left learn some physical mathematics. Also how the frick can i understand category theory ?
you never will with that attitude.
>Numbers aren't arbitrary
Get a load of this weak mythologizer.
Not his best moment, I agree.
Nietcels in absolute disarray kek. Stick to Marx, homosexuals. He doesn't pull this cringe shit.
>thread about math not being real fills up with actual morons
Beautiful.
Holy shit how is IQfy this stupid? Guys hes saying the FIELD of MATHEMATICS would not have come into existence, not mathematics itself
>the FIELD of MATHEMATICS
you mean NUMERACY
>Math alone can't be a sufficient description of the world
Illiterate homosexual
Nietzsche is moronic.
Only based thing he's ever said.
> Language would certainly have not come into existence if one had known from the beginning that there was in nature no such thing as "good", no "not", no 'is", no "hello", no "thank you", no "sneed", no "based", no "Nietzsche is homosexual loser moron", no "sex", no "meds".
Is that really what you got from this?
are you coping right now?
Suck my hyperbolic schlong, parallel pussy
Abrahamicists are coping hard itt
Cope, once again doesn't exist
As a Nietzsche bro and a math student I find this very uncomfortable.
>flunks math
Y‘all haven’t read the Greeks, have you?
Could you tell me what Platon said about an idea OP?
Who needs math when you got metaphysics.
This reminds me of a quotation by A. N. Whitehead:
>"Philosophers, when they have possessed a thorough knowledge of mathematics, have been among those who have enriched the science with some of its best ideas. On the other hand, it must be said that, with hardly an exception, all remarks on mathematics made by those philosophers who have possessed but a slight or hasty and late-acquired knowledge of it, are entirely worthless, being either trivial or wrong."
It's a good refutation of Nietzsche to be sure, considering he never properly ventured into mathematics and failed all of his early school classes in it.
Its not a good refutation, its just a statement. FYI im far from a Nietche gay, but the catagory of "refutation" shouldnt be applied here. its a truism.
More against your termonology rather than saying the above statement is false outright.
Let me rephrase that then: it's a good repudiation.
>What is Godel's theorem
Literally has nothing to do with this conversation you absolute pseud.
Uh where are your sources?
I suppose we could perceive things in such a terribly complicated way that we would never be able to make heads from tales or 1's from 2's
>lol stupid incel
>OWAH KNIGHTED BY THE QUEEN BASED BASED BASED
>Theoretical PHYSICIST BASED BASED SCIENTIFICALLY BASED
how can math be real if your eyes aren't real?
Nothing is real anon, but some things are more not real than others