To understand see the context: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Spengler
Oswald Spengler is virtually the forerunner of what might be called today, the Post Modernism. Strangely forgotten by their singers.
SPIRIT AND EXPERIENCE
NOTES FOR READERS Survived the Decline of the West
Robert Musil (1921)
I
Schiller test The measure necessary in the use of beautiful forms : "The arbitrariness of Belles Lettres in thought is really a great evil. But the chapters on the mathematics of the advantages of immediately dropping the mask of scientific objectivity qu'arborent so willingly, in any field of science, literature. Spengler wrote: "[This or that] may be less apparent in popular parts of mathematics, but the higher numerical formations which each [...] not slow to rise, as the Hindu decimal system, ancient groups of conic sections, prime numbers and the regular polyhedra, those in the West, the digital body, multidimensional spaces, buildings highly transcendental theory of transformations and set theory, the group of non-Euclidean geometry ... "Etc.. This is so serious that a non-mathematician will immediately persuaded that only a mathematician can speak well. In reality, this list of Spengler evokes the zoologist who rank among the quadrupeds, dogs, tables, chairs and the equations of the 4th degree! Spengler also wrote: "The consequence of this great intuition of space symbolic universe is the last and final design of the mathematical West: one that broadens and spiritualized theory by transforming in group theory. "But in fact, group theory is not an extension of the theory of functions. Spengler and further define "groups are ... "Only, what he defines, these are not groups, but with certain reservations, a" quantity ", otherwise, nothing in particular! It defines a "quantity", namely "the content of a quantity of elements of the same nature," he is wrong, and believes there take the definition of a digital body! He writes: "On the contrary, in function theory, the concept of transformation groups has a meaning decisive, and the musician will confirm that an essential part of modern composition is made of similar transformations. But the notion of transformation group does not exist in the theory of functions alone are the subject of intellectual groups-processing, but in group theory, and not in function. This is a good example of both the universality and style of the demonstration.
II
Based on such examples, we really can not pretend I'm a maniac of literal accuracy. When we pretend same. As it exists in the media, I say, and I say intellectuals (but I think the literary circles ) a bias against anything that is sprained in mathematics, logic and accuracy, among the crimes against the spirit, we likes to store the number of these honorable political crimes where the public prosecutor is in fact the accused. Let us be generous. Spengler thinks "about" working strokes of analogies: so, in a sense, we can always be right. When an author insists on giving false names concepts or confuse the reader gets used to it. It must nevertheless be maintained at least a code, any relationship, but uniquely, between word and thought. Yet even this is lacking. The examples chosen not look far among many, are not errors of detail, but a thinking!
There are lemon-yellow butterflies, there are also Chinese lemon. In a sense, we can define the butterfly: Chinese dwarf winged central Europe. Butterflies and pass for Chinese symbols of pleasure. One sees here for the first time the possibility of a match, never studied still, between the heyday of the lepidopteran fauna and Chinese civilization. The butterfly has wings and not the Chinese is a surface phenomenon. A zoologist would he even if only a small part of the latest and most profound discoveries of the art, this is not for me to consider first the significance of the fact that the butterflies did not invent gunpowder : precisely because the Chinese have gone before. The predilection of some nocturnal species suicidal for the lights on a hangover is still difficult to explain to the understanding daytime, this morphological relationship with China.
Whatever we seeks to prove as well and I chose the example of mathematics, including Spengler himself says he is the only one who can corroborate his argument, to show what confidence it deserves.
There are lemon-yellow butterflies, there are also Chinese lemon. In a sense, we can define the butterfly: Chinese dwarf winged central Europe. Butterflies and pass for Chinese symbols of pleasure. One sees here for the first time the possibility of a match, never studied still, between the heyday of the lepidopteran fauna and Chinese civilization. The butterfly has wings and not the Chinese is a surface phenomenon. A zoologist would he even if only a small part of the latest and most profound discoveries of the art, this is not for me to consider first the significance of the fact that the butterflies did not invent gunpowder : precisely because the Chinese have gone before. The predilection of some nocturnal species suicidal for the lights on a hangover is still difficult to explain to the understanding daytime, this morphological relationship with China.
Whatever we seeks to prove as well and I chose the example of mathematics, including Spengler himself says he is the only one who can corroborate his argument, to show what confidence it deserves.
III
Time to draw epistemological conclusions that Spengler's review of physics.
He asserts that "words such as size, position, process, change of state, already represent images specifically Western [...] but completely dominate the character of scientific facts as such and their way of being known, let alone such complicated concepts as working voltage, amount of energy, heat, probability, each of which contains a real man for himself myth natural " .
"The experiment, the systematic manipulation of the experiment is highly dogmatic, and presupposes a particular aspect of nature. "The closed complex, highly convincing, irrefutable truths depends to a very important sense, changing, destinies general National and individuals. Every great physicist whose personality gives a direction and a specific color to his discoveries, each hypothesis, unthinkable without the aftertaste of individuality, each problem that falls more in the hands of such research than in those of another, represent all intervention of fate in the formation of doctrine. Who does not dispute much of it on there in the absolute moments of mechanics. "
He asserts that "words such as size, position, process, change of state, already represent images specifically Western [...] but completely dominate the character of scientific facts as such and their way of being known, let alone such complicated concepts as working voltage, amount of energy, heat, probability, each of which contains a real man for himself myth natural " .
"The experiment, the systematic manipulation of the experiment is highly dogmatic, and presupposes a particular aspect of nature. "The closed complex, highly convincing, irrefutable truths depends to a very important sense, changing, destinies general National and individuals. Every great physicist whose personality gives a direction and a specific color to his discoveries, each hypothesis, unthinkable without the aftertaste of individuality, each problem that falls more in the hands of such research than in those of another, represent all intervention of fate in the formation of doctrine. Who does not dispute much of it on there in the absolute moments of mechanics. "
Spengler's remarks, excluding some ambiguities, are fully justified. The only fault of the author is to believe news : They sound familiar to anyone even slightly informed about the work of epistemology of the past fifty years.
But when he concludes that it is in the choice of physics, " problems style ... ("There are physical systems as there are tragedies and symphonies. It is here, as in painting, schools, traditions, manners, conventions ..."), it is a gallus Matthiae gibberish.
Spengler says there is no reality. That nature is a function of culture. That cultures are the latest reality that is accessible. Skepticism that our last phase must have a historical character. But why should the axes of the Palaeolithic and the levers of Archimedes' time have they acted exactly like today? Why a vulgar ape can use a lever or a stone as if he knew the law and the static solids, and a panther infer the presence of a trace of the game as if it was causal familiar? If you do not want to be forced to assume a "culture" common monkey, the man of the Stone Age, Archimedes and the panther, no may admit the existence of a common external controller to the subjects, that is to say an experience capable of extension and development, the possibility of knowledge, some version of truth, progress, the rise in short, this mixture of subjective and objective factors of knowledge that distinction is precisely the sort of tedious work of epistemology which Spen settle was delivered, presumably because decidedly opposed too many obstacles to the free flight of thought.
But when he concludes that it is in the choice of physics, " problems style ... ("There are physical systems as there are tragedies and symphonies. It is here, as in painting, schools, traditions, manners, conventions ..."), it is a gallus Matthiae gibberish.
Spengler says there is no reality. That nature is a function of culture. That cultures are the latest reality that is accessible. Skepticism that our last phase must have a historical character. But why should the axes of the Palaeolithic and the levers of Archimedes' time have they acted exactly like today? Why a vulgar ape can use a lever or a stone as if he knew the law and the static solids, and a panther infer the presence of a trace of the game as if it was causal familiar? If you do not want to be forced to assume a "culture" common monkey, the man of the Stone Age, Archimedes and the panther, no may admit the existence of a common external controller to the subjects, that is to say an experience capable of extension and development, the possibility of knowledge, some version of truth, progress, the rise in short, this mixture of subjective and objective factors of knowledge that distinction is precisely the sort of tedious work of epistemology which Spen settle was delivered, presumably because decidedly opposed too many obstacles to the free flight of thought.
Spengler notes somewhere that knowledge is not a simple content, but a living act, it is also content, that is what he neglects too much. But what characterizes and defines our intellectual situation is precisely the plethora of content, hypertrophy of the knowledge of facts (including moral facts), the spreading of the experiment on the surface of nature, disorder, out of sight, anything that can not get rid of the denial. Or we perish, or we will overcome by making us a stronger soul. More reason to try to retract this absurd human risk and the immense hope by removing the facts, by a false skepticism, their character facts.
IV
Like many laws of nature are the product of spatial measurements, we see how successful it would be for the author failed to show that space, in every culture, not only is otherwise lived, but it really is different: what better proof indeed that the wave nature is a function of culture?
In fact, Spengler claims to have cleared up the "illusion of a constant space enclosing all men could agree on which conceptually without reservations ", and have revealed" a stretch in itself ... independent of the specific sense of the shape of the knowing subject "is a" chimera. "
It refers to the existence of non-Euclidean geometries and concludes that there are several concepts of space that are defined by the very fact that these geometries are valid or not for them. Call it the mathematical spaces. They were born of the fact that some properties of traditional Euclidean space have been changed; add that one can still use the mathematical expression of physical facts, so real. But then, usually, we introduce a distinction like other mathematical symbols, the space chosen for the first representation is never a conceptual bridge open to phenomena that occur in another area, that of the secular reality. Call it empirical-metric space, since none other than the space of experience where the dominant aspect of measurement; what we shall be convinced easily by remembering that there is next to space-metric and empirical in a sense before him, other areas are visible, tangible or audible at all levels, the primary impression the collection fully conscious. These spaces are Euclidean nothing less: in visual space, for example, the parallels intersect, the length depends on the relative position of segments, the three dimensions are not equivalent, and there is no specific illusions often prove as such only by coincidence experiments with another sensory field. I do not intend to develop it, or how, from there, is the total space experience, why he is considered Euclidean and to what extent the deepening of the experience mathematical-physical reason for doubting. I just to note that this problem has been the subject of numerous works on epistemology and psychology whose conclusions, if they do not yet provide the answer, let it at least expected. Spengler was therefore quite correct in asserting that there is a plurality of mathematical-physical spaces, better yet: the "multiple structures of perception variables" that he says does exist, his only fault is see it as a basis for the theory of space. Again, he took the starting point of reflection for its successful conclusion. It is a mistake that would have avoided if he does not consider the "silly methods of experimental psychology 'As' a killing ground for mediocre minds "and therefore unworthy of him and the work of epistemology as" pedantic trifles. " I leave aside considerations like the weather, the "mystery of spatialization" in favor of a broader package: in detail, in fact, it's always the same image is repeated.
In fact, Spengler claims to have cleared up the "illusion of a constant space enclosing all men could agree on which conceptually without reservations ", and have revealed" a stretch in itself ... independent of the specific sense of the shape of the knowing subject "is a" chimera. "
It refers to the existence of non-Euclidean geometries and concludes that there are several concepts of space that are defined by the very fact that these geometries are valid or not for them. Call it the mathematical spaces. They were born of the fact that some properties of traditional Euclidean space have been changed; add that one can still use the mathematical expression of physical facts, so real. But then, usually, we introduce a distinction like other mathematical symbols, the space chosen for the first representation is never a conceptual bridge open to phenomena that occur in another area, that of the secular reality. Call it empirical-metric space, since none other than the space of experience where the dominant aspect of measurement; what we shall be convinced easily by remembering that there is next to space-metric and empirical in a sense before him, other areas are visible, tangible or audible at all levels, the primary impression the collection fully conscious. These spaces are Euclidean nothing less: in visual space, for example, the parallels intersect, the length depends on the relative position of segments, the three dimensions are not equivalent, and there is no specific illusions often prove as such only by coincidence experiments with another sensory field. I do not intend to develop it, or how, from there, is the total space experience, why he is considered Euclidean and to what extent the deepening of the experience mathematical-physical reason for doubting. I just to note that this problem has been the subject of numerous works on epistemology and psychology whose conclusions, if they do not yet provide the answer, let it at least expected. Spengler was therefore quite correct in asserting that there is a plurality of mathematical-physical spaces, better yet: the "multiple structures of perception variables" that he says does exist, his only fault is see it as a basis for the theory of space. Again, he took the starting point of reflection for its successful conclusion. It is a mistake that would have avoided if he does not consider the "silly methods of experimental psychology 'As' a killing ground for mediocre minds "and therefore unworthy of him and the work of epistemology as" pedantic trifles. " I leave aside considerations like the weather, the "mystery of spatialization" in favor of a broader package: in detail, in fact, it's always the same image is repeated.
V
A note before going further. It was invoked repeatedly by the authority of experience.
Some respond by shrugging his shoulders philosophy empiricist! That is to say, an orientation that is precisely the thinking, too, that a Directorate among many, and does not claim alone possess truth. This emphasis on character fact, Spengler spacing casually as another symptom of Western civilization. The chorus of defenders of the spirit and beautiful soul, Goethe - unduly regimented - the last and the last booby bigot came, rehashing long unison affirmation, while intuitive, there is nothing more pitiful than empiricism.
Before answering, I should say that I would consider unfair to a work which has its meaning and its own life (that's how I feel that Spengler's) first in rush to ridicule the weaknesses then slide on his little pot fire personal, in order to simmer his superiority and that even more superficially than the author, because time, place and importance of my consciousness I miss ! I said that I shall not judge by Spengler's book, but I attack. I attack it where it is typical, where it is superficial. Spengler attack is an attack on the time which it originates and to which he pleases, because his sins and those of his time merge. But it does not refute an era: I do not mean by agnosticism, but because no man would spend time there. One can hardly watch as he fingers and, occasionally, tap it.
experience who takes charge, from Spengler has absolutely nothing to do with the distinctions in the history of philosophy. No system of thought can be in contradiction with experience or just the conclusions drawn are: in this sense, all philosophy is a serious empiricism. How to identify the precise concept of experience, distinguishing the elements aprioristic elements of experience in the strict sense, and in what sense it is permissible to speak of a priori, as many complex debates and not nearly over. But if we can ignore it, among other reasons, because the general aversion that was mentioned concerns, not theoretical work lay unknown, but an attitude of mind which, encouraged by the success of natural sciences since the eighteenth century, gaining more and more civilized humanity. Experience counts for scientists - there are many thinkers who had reported having experienced God - is one that can be guaranteed to everyone in the ascertainable circumstances. I would, not without malice, adding that it is a trivial experience. In this sense, of course, empiricism narrows the mind. Forced to build from the bottom rather than the top, accessible and safe ground - large theoretical thoughts are relatively rare - the accuracy, often, a little gentrified, the first movement is always the lowest, and as the second, which would amount, generally less well managed, we end up sticking to the first. Empiricism - when it does not become one of the highest intellectual virtues - implies some phlegm philosophical butt is glued fragments of experience, until he come out, perhaps! a system. We turn in circles by simply storing phenomena in other groups of phenomena. And if in such an attitude, the metaphysical need is not as commonly overlooked that admits failing to see beyond appearances, we must recognize that the passion of the reduction will lead to excesses, and that Some explanations are valid, so to speak, within the limits of jargon. That is what can justify the fight against the narrowness of the scientific spirit of intellectualism, rationalism, etc.. But do not forget: any form of thinking has its procession of grotesques, and that of the opponent is remarkably longer. If the empiricist is Lucifer precipitated by God into the abyss, thinking that the main argument in its favor is the lack of any philosophical angels! This is to show, in honor of a higher value, one of these angels plucked by me, I chose the example of Spengler.
Some respond by shrugging his shoulders philosophy empiricist! That is to say, an orientation that is precisely the thinking, too, that a Directorate among many, and does not claim alone possess truth. This emphasis on character fact, Spengler spacing casually as another symptom of Western civilization. The chorus of defenders of the spirit and beautiful soul, Goethe - unduly regimented - the last and the last booby bigot came, rehashing long unison affirmation, while intuitive, there is nothing more pitiful than empiricism.
Before answering, I should say that I would consider unfair to a work which has its meaning and its own life (that's how I feel that Spengler's) first in rush to ridicule the weaknesses then slide on his little pot fire personal, in order to simmer his superiority and that even more superficially than the author, because time, place and importance of my consciousness I miss ! I said that I shall not judge by Spengler's book, but I attack. I attack it where it is typical, where it is superficial. Spengler attack is an attack on the time which it originates and to which he pleases, because his sins and those of his time merge. But it does not refute an era: I do not mean by agnosticism, but because no man would spend time there. One can hardly watch as he fingers and, occasionally, tap it.
experience who takes charge, from Spengler has absolutely nothing to do with the distinctions in the history of philosophy. No system of thought can be in contradiction with experience or just the conclusions drawn are: in this sense, all philosophy is a serious empiricism. How to identify the precise concept of experience, distinguishing the elements aprioristic elements of experience in the strict sense, and in what sense it is permissible to speak of a priori, as many complex debates and not nearly over. But if we can ignore it, among other reasons, because the general aversion that was mentioned concerns, not theoretical work lay unknown, but an attitude of mind which, encouraged by the success of natural sciences since the eighteenth century, gaining more and more civilized humanity. Experience counts for scientists - there are many thinkers who had reported having experienced God - is one that can be guaranteed to everyone in the ascertainable circumstances. I would, not without malice, adding that it is a trivial experience. In this sense, of course, empiricism narrows the mind. Forced to build from the bottom rather than the top, accessible and safe ground - large theoretical thoughts are relatively rare - the accuracy, often, a little gentrified, the first movement is always the lowest, and as the second, which would amount, generally less well managed, we end up sticking to the first. Empiricism - when it does not become one of the highest intellectual virtues - implies some phlegm philosophical butt is glued fragments of experience, until he come out, perhaps! a system. We turn in circles by simply storing phenomena in other groups of phenomena. And if in such an attitude, the metaphysical need is not as commonly overlooked that admits failing to see beyond appearances, we must recognize that the passion of the reduction will lead to excesses, and that Some explanations are valid, so to speak, within the limits of jargon. That is what can justify the fight against the narrowness of the scientific spirit of intellectualism, rationalism, etc.. But do not forget: any form of thinking has its procession of grotesques, and that of the opponent is remarkably longer. If the empiricist is Lucifer precipitated by God into the abyss, thinking that the main argument in its favor is the lack of any philosophical angels! This is to show, in honor of a higher value, one of these angels plucked by me, I chose the example of Spengler.
0 comments:
Post a Comment