“Could we agree on just the basics?”
“Not sure what you mean? What basics?” you ask.
“Well, I was thinking that we generally fall into two kinds of people from a philosophical perspective: Those who seek some underlying meaning to ‘it all’ and those who avoid thinking about ‘it all.’ The ‘it all’ being not just the physical universe but also the immaterial universe.”
“Now, I don’t want to put the proverbial fly in your ointment,” you interject, “but I have to say I’m a bit surprised that you think you can draw me into a conversation that gives me no choice. I have to discuss this stuff with you or be labeled as the ‘distracted one,’ the petty day-to-day busybody wrapped up in the moment or the very near future of doing—and doing thoughtlessly. I don’t think one has to be either a thinker or a doer. I can think when I do and do when I think. And I don’t need some philosopher to advise me about my daily life or perspectives.”
“Yet, there are those among us who never stop to see that what they do might be connected to all there is and that what they think might be universal without their knowing. Here’s what I mean. I’m sure the Egyptians knew their geometry. They built those pyramids that have outlasted virtually all other buildings in spite of attacks by weather, grave robbers, and archeologists. I tried building a wooden pyramid once, and, let me tell you, it’s a difficult task. Back to Egyptians and their geometry or any culture and its math. Before we standardized math symbols, every culture seemed to have its own way of expressing mathematical concepts and of solving problems. But—and here’s what I’m getting at—regardless of the symbols the answers remain virtually the same, only the level of refinement seems to have changed, as it has with pi. The underlying truth of a diameter’s relationship to a circumference is what it is and doesn’t depend on symbols, beliefs, or even uses for circles. Makes me want to say with Brian Regan, the comedian, ‘Now, that’s what I’m talkin’ about.’”
“So,” you ask, “are you going to say that there’s a corollary to math’s universal applicability in my life or perspectives?”
“If mathematical concepts have universal applicability, is there an analog in ethics (or morality) or in meaning in spite of apparent differences in cultures or social movements? Take infanticide, for example. Apparently, for various reasons throughout history, infants have been left to die. Maybe the most famous two such infants are Romulus and Remus, the former the legendary founder of Rome. Amulius saw the twins as a threat, as Herod saw Jesus as a threat, and ordered them killed—abandoned by the river Tiber. They were by chance or fate saved, as legend has it. But that’s the story and not the essence of what I’m discussing. Is there any overriding or underlying meaning that crosses cultures and time with regard to infanticide? Or any ‘cide’?
“Could we, for example, reason through or to an underlying meaning or ethics that would stand up against both the test of time and the test of culture? That is, is there meaning or ethics outside the moment, outside the perspectives we have through inculcation? Can we derive any universal meaning or ethical system by becoming Platonic and using reason?
“Where do you find meaning, not just for a question like the ethics of infanticide, but for all that you are and do? Do you simply reason? If so, then you stand in the tradition of an intellectual conflict, one typified by the stances of Bernard of Clairvaux and Abelard. As translated by Morris Bishop, Bernard said, ‘You will find more in forests than in books. Woods and stones will teach you more than any master.’ (276). * Abelard, a Scholastic, went to the statements in the Bible and to those of ‘inspired authorities’ for meaning and then used reason to refine his perspectives.
“So, here we are back to you. Do you daily go about doing what it is you do without asking yourself whether or not what you do—and what you think—has some universality like math?** Remember, math seems to be applicable everywhere and in any culture’s symbols for math’s fundamental entities, ‘things’ like circles, pyramids, or even processes like those described by Newton. Or do you daily fret over underlying meaning, the universality of your ethical system, or even your perspectives on culture and life?
“The Scholastics, following their leader Abelard, sought meaning by giving arguments for and against their chosen topic, and then tried to find a resolution. Thomas Aquinas followed in that path to meaning, and so did Hegel, who wrote about thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Every Matlock or Perry Mason episode does the same, with prosecutors and defense lawyers arguing theses, antitheses, and arriving at a conclusion, a synthesis.
“If you are wont to avoid thinking about doing—any doing, from your daily chores to infanticide—then the question of your methodology is moot. But if you are inclined to question the universality of ‘it all,’ then how do you go about determining whether or not there is an analog of math, a universality in the midst of diversity of culture and through human history? I suppose it’s a matter of applicability. If there is an underlying meaning to ‘it all,’ and if there is such an analog in our daily lives, then what is the application that we derive from a Scholastic-like, Thomist-like, Hegel-like, Perry Mason-like synthesis of pro and con, thesis and antithesis?***
*Bishop, Morris, The Middle Ages. New York. American Heritage Press. 1970.
**I’ve quoted two guys on a similar topic before. First their statement, second the reference: “We can think of no instance in which the existence of mathematical concepts of one culture were invalid in another” (26). Rothman, Tony and George Sudarchan. Doubt and Certainty. Reading, Massachusetts, Helix Books (Perseus Books), 1998.
**With regard to that very specific topic, infanticide, I would simply point out that regardless of any mythical background, had Amulius and Herod been successful, neither Rome nor Christianity would exist.
“Not sure what you mean? What basics?” you ask.
“Well, I was thinking that we generally fall into two kinds of people from a philosophical perspective: Those who seek some underlying meaning to ‘it all’ and those who avoid thinking about ‘it all.’ The ‘it all’ being not just the physical universe but also the immaterial universe.”
“Now, I don’t want to put the proverbial fly in your ointment,” you interject, “but I have to say I’m a bit surprised that you think you can draw me into a conversation that gives me no choice. I have to discuss this stuff with you or be labeled as the ‘distracted one,’ the petty day-to-day busybody wrapped up in the moment or the very near future of doing—and doing thoughtlessly. I don’t think one has to be either a thinker or a doer. I can think when I do and do when I think. And I don’t need some philosopher to advise me about my daily life or perspectives.”
“Yet, there are those among us who never stop to see that what they do might be connected to all there is and that what they think might be universal without their knowing. Here’s what I mean. I’m sure the Egyptians knew their geometry. They built those pyramids that have outlasted virtually all other buildings in spite of attacks by weather, grave robbers, and archeologists. I tried building a wooden pyramid once, and, let me tell you, it’s a difficult task. Back to Egyptians and their geometry or any culture and its math. Before we standardized math symbols, every culture seemed to have its own way of expressing mathematical concepts and of solving problems. But—and here’s what I’m getting at—regardless of the symbols the answers remain virtually the same, only the level of refinement seems to have changed, as it has with pi. The underlying truth of a diameter’s relationship to a circumference is what it is and doesn’t depend on symbols, beliefs, or even uses for circles. Makes me want to say with Brian Regan, the comedian, ‘Now, that’s what I’m talkin’ about.’”
“So,” you ask, “are you going to say that there’s a corollary to math’s universal applicability in my life or perspectives?”
“If mathematical concepts have universal applicability, is there an analog in ethics (or morality) or in meaning in spite of apparent differences in cultures or social movements? Take infanticide, for example. Apparently, for various reasons throughout history, infants have been left to die. Maybe the most famous two such infants are Romulus and Remus, the former the legendary founder of Rome. Amulius saw the twins as a threat, as Herod saw Jesus as a threat, and ordered them killed—abandoned by the river Tiber. They were by chance or fate saved, as legend has it. But that’s the story and not the essence of what I’m discussing. Is there any overriding or underlying meaning that crosses cultures and time with regard to infanticide? Or any ‘cide’?
“Could we, for example, reason through or to an underlying meaning or ethics that would stand up against both the test of time and the test of culture? That is, is there meaning or ethics outside the moment, outside the perspectives we have through inculcation? Can we derive any universal meaning or ethical system by becoming Platonic and using reason?
“Where do you find meaning, not just for a question like the ethics of infanticide, but for all that you are and do? Do you simply reason? If so, then you stand in the tradition of an intellectual conflict, one typified by the stances of Bernard of Clairvaux and Abelard. As translated by Morris Bishop, Bernard said, ‘You will find more in forests than in books. Woods and stones will teach you more than any master.’ (276). * Abelard, a Scholastic, went to the statements in the Bible and to those of ‘inspired authorities’ for meaning and then used reason to refine his perspectives.
“So, here we are back to you. Do you daily go about doing what it is you do without asking yourself whether or not what you do—and what you think—has some universality like math?** Remember, math seems to be applicable everywhere and in any culture’s symbols for math’s fundamental entities, ‘things’ like circles, pyramids, or even processes like those described by Newton. Or do you daily fret over underlying meaning, the universality of your ethical system, or even your perspectives on culture and life?
“The Scholastics, following their leader Abelard, sought meaning by giving arguments for and against their chosen topic, and then tried to find a resolution. Thomas Aquinas followed in that path to meaning, and so did Hegel, who wrote about thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Every Matlock or Perry Mason episode does the same, with prosecutors and defense lawyers arguing theses, antitheses, and arriving at a conclusion, a synthesis.
“If you are wont to avoid thinking about doing—any doing, from your daily chores to infanticide—then the question of your methodology is moot. But if you are inclined to question the universality of ‘it all,’ then how do you go about determining whether or not there is an analog of math, a universality in the midst of diversity of culture and through human history? I suppose it’s a matter of applicability. If there is an underlying meaning to ‘it all,’ and if there is such an analog in our daily lives, then what is the application that we derive from a Scholastic-like, Thomist-like, Hegel-like, Perry Mason-like synthesis of pro and con, thesis and antithesis?***
*Bishop, Morris, The Middle Ages. New York. American Heritage Press. 1970.
**I’ve quoted two guys on a similar topic before. First their statement, second the reference: “We can think of no instance in which the existence of mathematical concepts of one culture were invalid in another” (26). Rothman, Tony and George Sudarchan. Doubt and Certainty. Reading, Massachusetts, Helix Books (Perseus Books), 1998.
**With regard to that very specific topic, infanticide, I would simply point out that regardless of any mythical background, had Amulius and Herod been successful, neither Rome nor Christianity would exist.
RSS Feed