Tibor Odor wrote, some days ago:
For me, who is a mathematician, Heidegger is the only known philosopher
except Plato, whose work, at least Beeing and Time,
expresses beauty, which seems to be very similar to mathematical beauty. I
strongly feel, that some of Heidegger's ideas are formalizable.
S. harkin replied:
>>
>> It would be hard to imagine anything more alien to "Heideggarian" "thought"
>> than an attempt to formalise it in a precise, mathematical way.
>>
>> Mathematical formalisation is a fore-grounding that already determines the
>> nature of its objects and their way of being. It is _one_ possible
>> fore-grounding.
>>
>> As formulaic, algorithmic, essentially pre-determined, (pre-determination in
>> its essence) it cannot be an experience of truth (temporalised unveiling).
>> As H.'s reliable disciple, H-G Gadamer, puts it "Truth and Method" poses a
>> choice between two options; between thinking and calculating.
>>
>> For me [Heidegger's] remains the
>> most comprehensive _agenda_ (not method!) for thinking about our
>> pre-occupation with science and technology, the ongoing mathematisation of
>> 'the' universe and the precisely formal 'digitisation' of our world.
>>
Speaking up at last (after long-term lurking), I would like to say that the
possibility of formalizing Heidegger's fundamental ontology sounds like an
interesting and challenging task. For those who argue that mathematical
formalisation is inimical to Heidegger's thought it is worth remembering
that mathematics, and physics also, has been pushed, since Eistein, and
probably earlier (I am not a scientist), into realms encompassing increasing
areas of indeterminacy (or uncertainty). The simultaneous apparent order and
entropy inherent in 'chaos theory' is an example of mathematics meeting
uncertainty, as is Heisenberg's principle. Mathematics is not necessarily
the discipline of imposing an arbitrarily formal 'digitising' pattern on an
unruly universe; we can also see mathematics (or philosophy) as expressing
the beauty and harmony which we see in the world of which we are each a
part. This is why Heidegger can be considered along with Plato as writing in
a style aesthetically beautiful because of its mathematical beauty, even
though neither writes in a formal or rigid language.
JT Fraser (in several of his books) explains the development of mathematical
theories encompassing uncertainty (and relativity) as mechanisms for
relating different two notions of time, one peculiar to the movements of
inanimate nature, the other to the existential experience of thinking
beings. This is a very complex area, far too large to explain here - the
point is that mathematics in capable of thinking more subtly than we might
think about the question of being; Heidegger *was* a trained mathematician,
and no doubt derived some of his thoughts in Being and Time from speculation
similar to Heisenberg's.
Tibor - I would be most interested to see the work that you have done -
please post it to the group or to me. (I cannot help you, being untrained,
but am interested nevertheless.) I am skeptical of the possibility of
formalising Heidegger's ontology of Dasein; I do not think it takes
seriously enough the notion of time relevant to that portion of the world
which is not conscious.
Emma Rooksby
Murdoch University,
Western Australia.
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
For me, who is a mathematician, Heidegger is the only known philosopher
except Plato, whose work, at least Beeing and Time,
expresses beauty, which seems to be very similar to mathematical beauty. I
strongly feel, that some of Heidegger's ideas are formalizable.
S. harkin replied:
>>
>> It would be hard to imagine anything more alien to "Heideggarian" "thought"
>> than an attempt to formalise it in a precise, mathematical way.
>>
>> Mathematical formalisation is a fore-grounding that already determines the
>> nature of its objects and their way of being. It is _one_ possible
>> fore-grounding.
>>
>> As formulaic, algorithmic, essentially pre-determined, (pre-determination in
>> its essence) it cannot be an experience of truth (temporalised unveiling).
>> As H.'s reliable disciple, H-G Gadamer, puts it "Truth and Method" poses a
>> choice between two options; between thinking and calculating.
>>
>> For me [Heidegger's] remains the
>> most comprehensive _agenda_ (not method!) for thinking about our
>> pre-occupation with science and technology, the ongoing mathematisation of
>> 'the' universe and the precisely formal 'digitisation' of our world.
>>
Speaking up at last (after long-term lurking), I would like to say that the
possibility of formalizing Heidegger's fundamental ontology sounds like an
interesting and challenging task. For those who argue that mathematical
formalisation is inimical to Heidegger's thought it is worth remembering
that mathematics, and physics also, has been pushed, since Eistein, and
probably earlier (I am not a scientist), into realms encompassing increasing
areas of indeterminacy (or uncertainty). The simultaneous apparent order and
entropy inherent in 'chaos theory' is an example of mathematics meeting
uncertainty, as is Heisenberg's principle. Mathematics is not necessarily
the discipline of imposing an arbitrarily formal 'digitising' pattern on an
unruly universe; we can also see mathematics (or philosophy) as expressing
the beauty and harmony which we see in the world of which we are each a
part. This is why Heidegger can be considered along with Plato as writing in
a style aesthetically beautiful because of its mathematical beauty, even
though neither writes in a formal or rigid language.
JT Fraser (in several of his books) explains the development of mathematical
theories encompassing uncertainty (and relativity) as mechanisms for
relating different two notions of time, one peculiar to the movements of
inanimate nature, the other to the existential experience of thinking
beings. This is a very complex area, far too large to explain here - the
point is that mathematics in capable of thinking more subtly than we might
think about the question of being; Heidegger *was* a trained mathematician,
and no doubt derived some of his thoughts in Being and Time from speculation
similar to Heisenberg's.
Tibor - I would be most interested to see the work that you have done -
please post it to the group or to me. (I cannot help you, being untrained,
but am interested nevertheless.) I am skeptical of the possibility of
formalising Heidegger's ontology of Dasein; I do not think it takes
seriously enough the notion of time relevant to that portion of the world
which is not conscious.
Emma Rooksby
Murdoch University,
Western Australia.
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---