Back to AtD: Pynchon & Math (Aristotle vs. Plato)

[Markekohut]

>  Monte writes: 
> Consider the exemplars in AtD, from Yashmeen’s airy math and relativity to the purposeful metal of ocean liner/warships and submarines and dive bombers. Consider the seriously punning juxtapositions, such as “wormholes” blasted and drilled by sweating miners, or a magic mirror smack dab in the reflective center of the text. Pynchon has an extraordinary awareness of both the spectrum (pure math -> mathematical science -> technology/engineering) and the strange colors you can get by mixing.
>  
>  
>  
> From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] On Behalf Of Paul Mackin
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 4:07 PM
> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> Subject: Re: Pynchon & Math (Aristotle vs. Plato)
>  
> 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> 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/20130126/815ebd42/attachment.html>