CMR wrote:

> Gödel's incompleteness theorems have and justly should be judged/interpreted
> purely on the merits of the arguments themselves, not the author's
> subjective(prejudiced?) interpretation, no?
>
> He was as much a victim(beneficiary?) of his "discoveries" as was anyone...

Precisely! The implication I was drawing is that, as he stated quite well,
his mathematical results reinforced his Platonist conviction. Unless you
are implying that mathematical reality favours the ones who submit to
it (an enticing possibility, for sure), I don't see how it could have been
otherwise...


>
>
> CMR
>
> <--enter gratuitous quotation that implies my profundity here-->
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joao Leao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <>
> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 9:51 AM
> Subject: [Fwd: Fw: Something for Platonists]
>
> > Joao Leao wrote:
> >
> > > James N Rose wrote:
> > >
> > > > Joao wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Speaking as a devout Platonist ..."
> > > >
> > > > About 7 years ago I realized there was
> > > > a severe contradiction resident in modern
> > > > concepts of Being.
> > > >
> > > > Godel's Incompleteness Theorems have
> > > > established a condition-of-knowledge which seem
> > > > to challenge if not negate Platonic thought.
> > >
> > > That just happens to be totally orthogonal to what
> > > Godel himself expressed as his own opinion on the
> > > consequence of his theorem... Godel is possibly
> > > the most consequent of all XXcent. self professed
> > > Platonists.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to get your ideas on the following:
> > > >
> > > > Consider the Platonic Ideal of 'apple'.  I can
> > > > almost guarantee that your mind immediately came
> > > > up with an image of 'apple' including stem, colorful
> > > > skin, other qualities, etc.
> > > >
> > > > As Godel designated -system internally consistent-,
> > > > we might at first presume the two depictions to be
> > > > isomorphic.
> > >
> > > Why?  Is there any reason why my "apple" need to
> > > fit a consistent system of "appleness"? I don't think so...
> > >
> > > > But I submit that per Godel, 'apple' includes only
> > > > those characteristics or qualia evident up to
> > > > but not external to the bounds of the system,
> > > > whatever they may be.
> > > >
> > > > That being the case, 'color' of any existential
> > > > ideal-apple exists only in the out-space where the
> > > > platonic apple per se -does not-.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore 'color' and 'apple' - in any platonic sense -
> > > > must be mutually exclusive.  Which seems to press the
> > > > 2500 year old standing impression of 'ideal apple'.
> > >
> > > Not at all. You are confusing images with things and
> > > forgetting a good deal of what platonism is about. An
> > > apple, this apple, the apple I am thinking of, all partake
> > > the form of "appleness" whatever that is. The color of
> > > this apple, the color of that bird, this red, the "red" you
> > > are thinking of right now", all partake of the form of
> > > "redness" in the Patonic world. There is no contradition
> > > here. There are no forms here!
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Another discontinuity.
> > > >
> > > > If you climb Mount Everest and sit down on it,
> > > > does the mountain now satisfy the platonic ideal
> > > > of "chair"?
> > >
> > > No, why should it? The form of a chair is not the
> > > form of "anything I sit on"!  You can sit on a table
> > > or on your head for all I care... This is a different in
> > > "extension" which is much easier to grasp than one
> > > of intention, but it is the same think.
> > >
> > > > Thanks in advance for your thoughts,
> > > >
> > > > James Rose
> > >
> > > I am afraid you are obviously confused about the basis of
> > > platonism and the dispute with kantianism, if you will.
> > > I suggest you read Stanley Rosen's "Antiplatonism" in
> > > his collection "The Ancients and the Moderns" for a
> > > recent and detailed review of the issue you raise, namely
> > > conditions-of-knowledge as conditions-of-being, a
> > > sibject prone to post-kantian confusions....
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > -Joao Leao
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Joao Pedro Leao  :::  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
> > > 1815 Massachussetts Av. , Cambridge MA 02140
> > > Work Phone: (617)-496-7990 extension 124
> > > VoIP Phone: (617)=384-6679
> > > Cell-Phone: (617)-817-1800
> > > ----------------------------------------------
> > > "All generalizations are abusive (specially this one!)"
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > --
> >
> > Joao Pedro Leao  :::  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
> > 1815 Massachussetts Av. , Cambridge MA 02140
> > Work Phone: (617)-496-7990 extension 124
> > VoIP Phone: (617)=384-6679
> > Cell-Phone: (617)-817-1800
> > ----------------------------------------------
> > "All generalizations are abusive (specially this one!)"
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >

--

Joao Pedro Leao  :::  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
1815 Massachussetts Av. , Cambridge MA 02140
Work Phone: (617)-496-7990 extension 124
VoIP Phone: (617)=384-6679
Cell-Phone: (617)-817-1800
----------------------------------------------
"All generalizations are abusive (specially this one!)"
-------------------------------------------------------



Reply via email to