Kugel Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 How important is it to know in depth Euclid's Elements in order to understand Philosophy prior to the 19th century? This book is driving me nuts! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 It's a basic knowledge you need to have to understand why philosophers wrote what they did. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fancykiller65 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 ?? Euclid's Elements? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 The Elements is still considered a masterpiece in the application of logic to mathematics. In historical context, it has proven enormously influential in many areas of science. Scientists Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, and Sir Isaac Newton were all influenced by the Elements, and applied their knowledge of it to their work. Mathematicians and philosophers, such as Bertrand Russell, Alfred North Whitehead, and Baruch Spinoza, have attempted to create their own foundational "Elements" for their respective disciplines, by adopting the axiomatized deductive structures that Euclid's work introduced. The austere beauty of Euclidean geometry has been seen by many in western culture as a glimpse of an otherworldly system of perfection and certainty. Abraham Lincoln kept a copy of Euclid in his saddlebag, and studied it late at night by lamplight; he related that he said to himself, you never can make a lawyer if you do not understand what demonstrate means; and I left my situation in Springfield, went home to my father's house, and stayed there till I could give any proposition in the six books of Euclid at sight Wiki - probably a good place for an overview 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 The best you can take from these histories of the development of human thought is the knowledge that there have been a number of extremely bright and hardworking people who have gone before you. Dismiss them at your peril. It also provides for an understanding of the possibilities of further development (provided you are prepared to work hard at it), and gives you a chance of arguing for your additions to the field, and against those who will test the same with ardent and arduous rigour. I'd suggest you go for a gestalt of the book first up - skim it, note those passages that catch your interest (if any) and see if you can come up with an idea of what it is he was trying (or successfully managing) to convey. See if you can provide yourself with any context from your own life where his principles are applied. Wading through the density of high philosophical writing is a turn off, fer sure. Wait 'til you get to "Les Mots et les Choses." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kugel Posted August 5, 2009 Author Share Posted August 5, 2009 How did you learn Euclid's Elements? What kind of space should be studied anyway? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 By rote is a good start, if you can be bothered and have the time. Or if you need the mathematical tools he describes and develops. But it seems you don't need that sort of in depth handle on the work, you need enough of it to compare his constructs with later developments. If you can see how Newton (for example) developed his ideas and tools (including calculus) from this base you have the start of an idea of how the language for describing the physical universe has developed and, perhaps, a better idea of how we think and how our thinking and perception can change. Why wouldn't you study all space, given the opportunity to study any? With enough of an analysis in depth you may discover a space that cannot be perceived except by means of an understanding of how perceptible space behaves. You might be able to describe gravity, for example. Convincing someone else of the fact of such a discovery is a little harder - for that you might need to study politics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 With enough of an analysis in depth you may discover a space that cannot be perceived except by means of an understanding of how perceptible space behaves. This thread is useless without pictures. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 This thread is useless without pictures. Some of us are lucky enough to lecture nubile young females on politics. I don't recall you providing us with the pictures either, Mr Affentitten. Grumblegrumble - he's right tho': think of all the things you can't possibly imagine and couldn't see even if you could. Pictures of that sort of thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 ...think of all the things you can't possibly imagine and couldn't see even if you could. Pictures of that sort of thing. A case could be made that M. C. Escher was pretty good at that sort of thing. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackhorse Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 Better than pictures, we have video... There is but one response to this: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xor+ Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 Wading through the density of high philosophical writing is a turn off, fer sure. Wait 'til you get to "Les Mots et les Choses." I've always thought Foucault was a pretty good writer. A bit vain and self-indulgent perhaps, and certainly an acquired taste if you come from a more analytic background. But not an unpleasant reading experience. For clarity and style, you can't beat old Wittgenstein, I guess. Better than pictures, we have video... Beckenbauer in the lineup is definitely a bit of a surprise. This thread is useless without pictures. Got one for you: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 I thought off-side also! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kugel Posted August 11, 2009 Author Share Posted August 11, 2009 How does Kurt Gödel fall into all of this? Did he really prove that logic is uncertain? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSgt Viljuri Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 Schreiber! Non-Euclidean geometry! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kugel Posted August 19, 2009 Author Share Posted August 19, 2009 It's hard being stupid. I just can't figure this **** out! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 It's hard being stupid. Can't be. So many people are wondrously successful at it. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 It's hard being stupid. I just can't figure this **** out! Nah, you're not stupid, you're just having to learn how to think along very rigid lines, using language you're not familiar with. Keep it up, it turns out that all effort is rewarding. "If you are not confused, you have mis-understood the question." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.