Pynchon & Math (Aristotle vs. Plato)

[Paul Mackin]

On 1/25/2013 5:23 PM, Markekohut wrote:
> This is Yashmeen, right? who gives up math? #notanaccident

Yep, to her Dad.

P
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 25, 2013, at 4:06 PM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net 
> <mailto:mackin.paul at verizon.net>> wrote:
>
>> On 1/25/2013 2:07 AM, Prashant Kumar 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.
>>
>>
>> "Mathematics once seemed the way--the internal life of numbers came 
>> as a revelation to me, perhaps as it might have to a Pythagorean 
>> apprentice long ago in Crotona--a reflection of some less accessible 
>> reality, through close study of which one might learn to pass on 
>> beyond the difficult given world."
>>
>> AtD. p. 749.
>>
>> P
>>
>>
>>>
>>> P.
>>>
>>> On 24 January 2013 22:57, alice wellintown 
>>> <alicewellintown at gmail.com <mailto: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/20130125/3c9d16ca/attachment.html>