Pynchon & Math (Aristotle vs. Plato)

[Markekohut]

And I might suggest P got it from Wittgentein mostly, (as well as the American tradition). Whether P even knew it came to Witt via Ramsey's taking his insights from the Pragmatists and the Scottish Enlightenment guys to Witt while Witt taught those poor elementary kids. 



Sent from my iPad

On Jan 25, 2013, at 2:07 AM, Prashant Kumar <siva.prashant.kumar at gmail.com> wrote:

> The interesting thing about this dichotomy (in the proper approach to Ethics) you mention is that it presupposes a  Platonic conception of mathematics; mathematics as a menagerie of axiomatically true pieces of abstraction.
> 
> A fallibilistic conception of mathematics (the mathematical empiricism of Quine and Putnam), itself descended from the american pragmatists, which conceives of mathematical theorems as contingent truths, will result in a more nebulous notion of precision.
> 
> I would argue this sort of naturalism, nature as a series of convenient but contingent truths, is a staple of american fiction more generally. For example, look at how Pynchon handles the feud between the Quaternionists and the Vectorists in AtD.
> 
> P.
> 
> On 24 January 2013 22:57, alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Several critical studies examine Pynchon and the American Pragmatists.
>> 
>> I think a good place to turn is to Aristotle. Here in an Introduction
>> we see a basic difference in Aristotle from Plato and Socrates, and
>> specifically, on Ethics. The wisdom of Aristotle is that he accepts
>> the idea that it is wise to examine or explore a topic only so far as
>> the topic permits, that there is an exhaustion point, and that in
>> Ethics, and in Politics, the topic does not allow for examination as
>> it does in other sciences.
>> 
>> Is the application of math to Ethics and Politics Fascist? Maybe.
>> Maybe something in that GR....
>> 
>> Is Plato a Fascist?
>> 
>> No, but the math....
>> 
>> The main difference between Plato and Aristotle is this: Plato thought
>> ethics was an exact (theoretical) science; Aristotle thought precision
>> was extremely difficult in a science such as ethics. Please note that
>> "science" is being used in its ancient sense of knowledge in general.
>> 
>> THE PROPER METHOD FOR ETHICS (Bk. I, Sec. 3)
>> 
>> From ethics one can expect only as much precision as the subject
>> matter allows. This is opposite to Plato's belief, because it does not
>> allow for any mathematical exactness. Does this mean, then, that moral
>> rules are "conventions," made up or created by humans? No, they are
>> natural, but they are not like Plato's immutable forms. Aristotle
>> avoids ethical relativism because of his confidence in human reason
>> and experience to decide on general courses of action.
>> 
>> Plato approached ethical questions with a formal, abstract approach,
>> analyzing each just as he would analyze a math problem. Aristotle,
>> though, believed that because of all the human variables found in
>> ethics (but not found in the formal sciences), mathematical precision
>> was impossible.
>> 
>> http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/103/aristotle.htm
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130125/5b3e49ca/attachment.html>