47 ideas
| 12330 | In ontology, logic dominated language, until logic was mathematized [Badiou] |
| Full Idea: From Aristotle to Hegel, logic was the philosophical category of ontology's dominion over language. The mathematization of logic has authorized language to become that which seizes philosophy for itself. | |
| From: Alain Badiou (Briefings on Existence [1998], 8) |
| 9808 | Philosophy aims to reveal the grandeur of mathematics [Badiou] |
| Full Idea: Philosophy's role consists in informing mathematics of its own speculative grandeur. | |
| From: Alain Badiou (Mathematics and Philosophy: grand and little [2004], p.11) | |
| A reaction: Revealing the grandeur of something sounds more like a rhetorical than a rational exercise. How would you reveal the grandeur of a sunset to someone? |
| 12318 | The female body, when taken in its entirety, is the Phallus itself [Badiou] |
| Full Idea: The female body, when taken in its entirety, is the Phallus itself. | |
| From: Alain Badiou (Briefings on Existence [1998]) | |
| A reaction: Too good to pass over, too crazy to file sensibly, too creepy to have been filed under humour, my candidate for the weirdest remark I have ever read in a serious philosopher, but no doubt if you read Lacan etc for long enough it looks deeply wise. |
| 12325 | Philosophy has been relieved of physics, cosmology, politics, and now must give up ontology [Badiou] |
| Full Idea: Philosophy has been released from, even relieved of, physics, cosmology, and politics, as well as many other things. It is important for it to be released from ontology per se. | |
| From: Alain Badiou (Briefings on Existence [1998], 3) | |
| A reaction: A startling proposal, for anyone who thought that ontology was First Philosophy. Badiou wants to hand ontology over to mathematicians, but I am unclear what remains for the philosophers to do. |
| 12324 | Consensus is the enemy of thought [Badiou] |
| Full Idea: Consensus is the enemy of thought. | |
| From: Alain Badiou (Briefings on Existence [1998], 2) | |
| A reaction: A nice slogan for bringing Enlightenment optimists to a halt. I am struck. Do I allow my own thinking to always be diverted towards something which might result in a consensus? Do I actually (horror!) prefer consensus to truth? |
| 14018 | Is Sufficient Reason self-refuting (no reason to accept it!), or is it a legitimate explanatory tool? [Bourne] |
| Full Idea: Mackie (1983) dismisses the Principle of Sufficient Reason quickly, arguing that it is self-refuting: there is no sufficient reason to accept it. However, a principle is not invalidated by not applying to itself; it can be a powerful heuristic tool. | |
| From: Craig Bourne (A Future for Presentism [2006], 6.VI) | |
| A reaction: If God was entirely rational, and created everything, that would be a sufficient reason to accept the principle. You would never, though, get to the reason why God was entirely rational. Something will always elude the principle. |
| 14008 | The redundancy theory conflates metalinguistic bivalence with object-language excluded middle [Bourne] |
| Full Idea: The problem with the redundancy theory of truth is that it conflates the metalinguistic notion of bivalence with a theorem of the object language, namely the law of excluded middle. | |
| From: Craig Bourne (A Future for Presentism [2006], 3.III Pr3) |
| 12337 | There is 'transivity' iff membership ∈ also means inclusion ⊆ [Badiou] |
| Full Idea: 'Transitivity' signifies that all of the elements of the set are also parts of the set. If you have α∈Β, you also have α⊆Β. This correlation of membership and inclusion gives a stability which is the sets' natural being. | |
| From: Alain Badiou (Briefings on Existence [1998], 11) |
| 12321 | The axiom of choice must accept an indeterminate, indefinable, unconstructible set [Badiou] |
| Full Idea: The axiom of choice actually amounts to admitting an absolutely indeterminate infinite set whose existence is asserted albeit remaining linguistically indefinable. On the other hand, as a process, it is unconstructible. | |
| From: Alain Badiou (Briefings on Existence [1998], 2) | |
| A reaction: If only constructible sets are admitted (see 'V = L') then there is a contradiction. |
| 10304 | Very few things in set theory remain valid in intuitionist mathematics [Bernays] |
| Full Idea: Very few things in set theory remain valid in intuitionist mathematics. | |
| From: Paul Bernays (On Platonism in Mathematics [1934]) |
| 12342 | Topos theory explains the plurality of possible logics [Badiou] |
| Full Idea: Topos theory explains the plurality of possible logics. | |
| From: Alain Badiou (Briefings on Existence [1998], 14) | |
| A reaction: This will because logic will have a distinct theory within each 'topos'. |
| 12341 | Logic is a mathematical account of a universe of relations [Badiou] |
| Full Idea: Logic should first and foremost be a mathematical thought of what a universe of relations is. | |
| From: Alain Badiou (Briefings on Existence [1998], 14) |
| 9812 | In mathematics, if a problem can be formulated, it will eventually be solved [Badiou] |
| Full Idea: Only in mathematics can one unequivocally maintain that if thought can formulate a problem, it can and will solve it, regardless of how long it takes. | |
| From: Alain Badiou (Mathematics and Philosophy: grand and little [2004], p.17) | |
| A reaction: I hope this includes proving the Continuum Hypothesis, and Goldbach's Conjecture. It doesn't seem quite true, but it shows why philosophers of a rationalist persuasion are drawn to mathematics. |
| 12335 | Numbers are for measuring and for calculating (and the two must be consistent) [Badiou] |
| Full Idea: Number is an instance of measuring (distinguishing the more from the less, and calibrating data), ..and a figure for calculating (one counts with numbers), ..and it ought to be a figure of consistency (the compatibility of order and calculation). | |
| From: Alain Badiou (Briefings on Existence [1998], 11) |
| 12334 | There is no single unified definition of number [Badiou] |
| Full Idea: Apparently - and this is quite unlike old Greek times - there is no single unified definition of number. | |
| From: Alain Badiou (Briefings on Existence [1998], 11) |
| 12333 | Each type of number has its own characteristic procedure of introduction [Badiou] |
| Full Idea: There is a heterogeneity of introductory procedures of different classical number types: axiomatic for natural numbers, structural for ordinals, algebraic for negative and rational numbers, topological for reals, mainly geometric for complex numbers. | |
| From: Alain Badiou (Briefings on Existence [1998], 11) |
| 12322 | Must we accept numbers as existing when they no longer consist of units? [Badiou] |
| Full Idea: Do we have to confer existence on numbers whose principle is to no longer consist of units? | |
| From: Alain Badiou (Briefings on Existence [1998], 2) | |
| A reaction: This very nicely expresses what seems to me perhaps the most important question in the philosophy of mathematics. I am reluctant to accept such 'unitless' numbers, but I then feel hopelessly old-fashioned and naïve. What to do? |
| 9813 | Mathematics shows that thinking is not confined to the finite [Badiou] |
| Full Idea: Mathematics teaches us that there is no reason whatsoever to confne thinking within the ambit of finitude. | |
| From: Alain Badiou (Mathematics and Philosophy: grand and little [2004], p.19) | |
| A reaction: This would perhaps make Cantor the greatest thinker who ever lived. It is an exhilarating idea, but we should ward the reader against romping of into unrestrained philosophical thought about infinities. You may be jumping without your Cantorian parachute. |
| 12327 | The undecidability of the Continuum Hypothesis may have ruined or fragmented set theory [Badiou] |
| Full Idea: As we have known since Paul Cohen's theorem, the Continuum Hypothesis is intrinsically undecidable. Many believe Cohen's discovery has driven the set-theoretic project into ruin, or 'pluralized' what was once presented as a unified construct. | |
| From: Alain Badiou (Briefings on Existence [1998], 6) | |
| A reaction: Badiou thinks the theorem completes set theory, by (roughly) finalising its map. |
| 12329 | If mathematics is a logic of the possible, then questions of existence are not intrinsic to it [Badiou] |
| Full Idea: If mathematics is a logic of the possible, then questions of existence are not intrinsic to it (as they are for the Platonist). | |
| From: Alain Badiou (Briefings on Existence [1998], 7) | |
| A reaction: See also Idea 12328. I file this to connect it with Hellman's modal (and nominalist) version of structuralism. Could it be that mathematics and modal logic are identical? |
| 10303 | Restricted Platonism is just an ideal projection of a domain of thought [Bernays] |
| Full Idea: A restricted Platonism does not claim to be more than, so to speak, an ideal projection of a domain of thought. | |
| From: Paul Bernays (On Platonism in Mathematics [1934], p.261) | |
| A reaction: I have always found Platonism to be congenial when it talks of 'ideals', and ridiculous when it talks of a special form of 'existence'. Ideals only 'exist' because we idealise things. I may declare myself, after all, to be a Restricted Platonist. |
| 12328 | Platonists like axioms and decisions, Aristotelians like definitions, possibilities and logic [Badiou] |
| Full Idea: A Platonist's interest focuses on axioms in which the decision of thought is played out, where an Aristotelian or Leibnizian interest focuses on definitions laying out the representation of possibilities (...and the essence of mathematics is logic). | |
| From: Alain Badiou (Briefings on Existence [1998], 7) | |
| A reaction: See Idea 12323 for the significance of the Platonist approach. So logicism is an Aristotelian project? Frege is not a true platonist? I like the notion of 'the representation of possibilities', so will vote for the Aristotelians, against Badiou. |
| 12331 | Logic is definitional, but real mathematics is axiomatic [Badiou] |
| Full Idea: Logic is definitional, whereas real mathematics is axiomatic. | |
| From: Alain Badiou (Briefings on Existence [1998], 10) |
| 10306 | Mathematical abstraction just goes in a different direction from logic [Bernays] |
| Full Idea: Mathematical abstraction does not have a lesser degree than logical abstraction, but rather another direction. | |
| From: Paul Bernays (On Platonism in Mathematics [1934], p.268) | |
| A reaction: His point is that the logicists seem to think that if you increasingly abstract from mathematics, you end up with pure logic. |
| 12340 | There is no Being as a whole, because there is no set of all sets [Badiou] |
| Full Idea: The fundamental theorem that 'there does not exist a set of all sets' designates the inexistence of Being as a whole. ...A crucial consequence of this property is that any ontological investigation is irremediably local. | |
| From: Alain Badiou (Briefings on Existence [1998], 14) | |
| A reaction: The second thought pushes Badiou into Topos Theory, where the real numbers (for example) have a separate theory in each 'topos'. |
| 9809 | Mathematics inscribes being as such [Badiou] |
| Full Idea: Mathematics inscribes being as such. | |
| From: Alain Badiou (Mathematics and Philosophy: grand and little [2004], p.12) | |
| A reaction: I don't pretend to understand that, but there is something about the purity and certainty of mathematics that makes us feel we are grappling with the core of existence. Perhaps. The same might be said of stubbing your toe on a bedpost. |
| 12323 | Existence is Being itself, but only as our thought decides it [Badiou] |
| Full Idea: Existence is precisely Being itself in as much as thought decides it. And that decision orients thought essentially. ...It is when you decide upon what exists that you bind your thought to Being. | |
| From: Alain Badiou (Briefings on Existence [1998], 2) | |
| A reaction: [2nd half p.57] Helpful for us non-Heideggerians to see what is going on. Does this mean that Being is Kant's noumenon? |
| 12332 | The modern view of Being comes when we reject numbers as merely successions of One [Badiou] |
| Full Idea: The saturation and collapse of the Euclidean idea of the being of number as One's procession signs the entry of the thought of Being into modern times. | |
| From: Alain Badiou (Briefings on Existence [1998], 11) | |
| A reaction: That is, by allowing that not all numbers are built of units, numbers expand widely enough to embrace everything we think of as Being. The landmark event is the acceptance of the infinite as a number. |
| 12326 | The primitive name of Being is the empty set; in a sense, only the empty set 'is' [Badiou] |
| Full Idea: In Set Theory, the primitive name of Being is the void, the empty set. The whole hierarchy takes root in it. In a certain sense, it alone 'is'. | |
| From: Alain Badiou (Briefings on Existence [1998], 6) | |
| A reaction: This is the key to Badiou's view that ontology is mathematics. David Lewis pursued interesting enquiries in this area. |
| 9811 | It is of the essence of being to appear [Badiou] |
| Full Idea: It is of the essence of being to appear. | |
| From: Alain Badiou (Mathematics and Philosophy: grand and little [2004], p.16) | |
| A reaction: Nice slogan. In my humble opinion 'continental' philosophy is well worth reading because, despite the fluffy rhetoric and the shameless egotism and the desire to shock the bourgeoisie, they occasionally make wonderfully thought-provoking remarks. |
| 12320 | Ontology is (and always has been) Cantorian mathematics [Badiou] |
| Full Idea: Enlightened by the Cantorian grounding of mathematics, we can assert ontology to be nothing other than mathematics itself. This has been the case ever since its Greek origin. | |
| From: Alain Badiou (Briefings on Existence [1998], 1) | |
| A reaction: There seems to be quite a strong feeling among mathematicians that new 'realms of being' are emerging from their researches. Only a Platonist, of course, is likely to find this idea sympathetic. |
| 14010 | All relations between spatio-temporal objects are either spatio-temporal, or causal [Bourne] |
| Full Idea: If there are any genuine relations at all between spatio-temporal objects, then they are all either spatio-temporal or causal. | |
| From: Craig Bourne (A Future for Presentism [2006], 3.III Pr4) | |
| A reaction: This sounds too easy, but I have wracked my brains for counterexamples and failed to find any. How about qualitative relations? |
| 14009 | It is a necessary condition for the existence of relations that both of the relata exist [Bourne] |
| Full Idea: It is widely held, and I think correctly so, that a necessary condition for the existence of relations is that both of the relata exist. | |
| From: Craig Bourne (A Future for Presentism [2006], 3.III Pr4) | |
| A reaction: This is either trivial or false. Relations in the actual world self-evidently relate components of it. But I seem able to revere Sherlock Holmes, and speculate about relations between possible entities. |
| 12338 | We must either assert or deny any single predicate of any single subject [Badiou] |
| Full Idea: There can be nothing intermediate to an assertion and a denial. We must either assert or deny any single predicate of any single subject. | |
| From: Alain Badiou (Briefings on Existence [1998], 1011b24) | |
| A reaction: The first sentence seems to be bivalence, and the second sentence excluded middle. |
| 9814 | All great poetry is engaged in rivalry with mathematics [Badiou] |
| Full Idea: Like every great poet, Mallarmé was engaged in a tacit rivalry with mathematics. | |
| From: Alain Badiou (Mathematics and Philosophy: grand and little [2004], p.20) | |
| A reaction: I love these French pronouncements! Would Mallarmé have agreed? If poetry and mathematics are the poles, where is philosophy to be found? |
| 12316 | For Enlightenment philosophers, God was no longer involved in politics [Badiou] |
| Full Idea: For the philosophers of the Enlightenment politics is strictly the affair of humankind, an immanent practice from which recourse to the All Mighty's providential organization had to be discarded. | |
| From: Alain Badiou (Briefings on Existence [1998], Prol) |
| 14016 | The idea of simultaneity in Special Relativity is full of verificationist assumptions [Bourne] |
| Full Idea: Special Relativity, with its definition of simultaneity, is shot through with verificationist assumptions. | |
| From: Craig Bourne (A Future for Presentism [2006], 6.IIc) | |
| A reaction: [He credits Sklar with this] I love hearing such points made, because all my instincts have rebelled against Einstein's story, even after I have been repeatedly told how stupid I am, and how I should study more maths etc. |
| 14019 | Relativity denies simultaneity, so it needs past, present and future (unlike Presentism) [Bourne] |
| Full Idea: Special Relativity denies absolute simultaneity, and therefore requires a past and a future, as well as a present. The Presentist, however, only requires the present. | |
| From: Craig Bourne (A Future for Presentism [2006], 6.VII) | |
| A reaction: It is nice to accuse Relativity of ontological extravagence. When it 'requires' past and future, that may not be a massive commitment, since the whole theory is fairly operationalist, according to Putnam. |
| 14013 | Special Relativity allows an absolute past, future, elsewhere and simultaneity [Bourne] |
| Full Idea: There is in special relativity a notion of 'absolute past', and of 'absolute future', and of 'absolute elsewhere', and of 'absolute simultaneity' (of events occurring at their space-time conjunction). | |
| From: Craig Bourne (A Future for Presentism [2006], 5.III) | |
| A reaction: [My summary of his paragraph] I am inclined to agree with Bourne that there is enough here to build some sort of notion of 'present' that will support the doctrine of Presentism. |
| 14015 | No-Futurists believe in past and present, but not future, and say the world grows as facts increase [Bourne] |
| Full Idea: 'No-Futurists' believe in the real existence of the past and present but not the future, and hold that the world grows as more and more facts come into existence. | |
| From: Craig Bourne (A Future for Presentism [2006], 6.IIb) | |
| A reaction: [He cites Broad 1923 and Tooley 1997] My sympathies are with Presentism, but there seems not denying that past events fix truths in a way that future events don't. The unchangeability of past events seems to make them factual. |
| 14007 | How can presentists talk of 'earlier than', and distinguish past from future? [Bourne] |
| Full Idea: Presentists have a difficulty with how they can help themselves to the notion of 'earlier than' without having to invoke real relata, and how presentism can distinguish the past from the future. | |
| From: Craig Bourne (A Future for Presentism [2006], 2.IV) | |
| A reaction: The obvious response is to infer the past from the present (fossils), and infer the future from the present (ticking bomb). But what is it that is being inferred, if the past and future are denied a priori? Tricky! |
| 14011 | Presentism seems to deny causation, because the cause and the effect can never coexist [Bourne] |
| Full Idea: It seems that presentism cannot accommodate causation at all. In a true instance of 'c causes e', it seems to follow that both c and e exist, and it is widely accepted that c is earlier than e. But for presentists that means c and e can't coexist. | |
| From: Craig Bourne (A Future for Presentism [2006], 4) | |
| A reaction: A nice problem. Obviously if the flying ball smashed the window, we are left with only the effect existing - otherwise we could intercept the ball and prevent the disaster. To say this cause and this effect coexist would be even dafter than the problem. |
| 14017 | Since presentists treat the presentness of events as basic, simultaneity should be define by that means [Bourne] |
| Full Idea: Since for presentism there is an ontologically significant and basic sense in which events are present, we should expect a definition of simultaneity in terms of presentness, rather than the other way round. | |
| From: Craig Bourne (A Future for Presentism [2006], 6.IV) | |
| A reaction: Love it. I don't see how you can even articulate questions about simultaneity if you don't already have a notion of presentness. What are the relata you are enquiring about? |
| 14003 | Time is tensed or tenseless; the latter says all times and objects are real, and there is no passage of time [Bourne] |
| Full Idea: Theories of time are in two broad categories, the tenseless and the tensed theories. In tenseless theories, all times are equally real, as are all objects located at them, and there is no passage of time from future to present to past. It's the B-series. | |
| From: Craig Bourne (A Future for Presentism [2006], Intro IIa) | |
| A reaction: It might solve a few of the problems, but is highly counterintuitive. Presumably it makes the passage of time an illusion, and gives no account of how events 'happen', or of their direction, and it leaves causation out on a limb. I'm afraid not. |
| 14005 | B-series objects relate to each other; A-series objects relate to the present [Bourne] |
| Full Idea: Objects in the B-series are earlier than, later than, or simultaneous with each other, whereas objects in the A-series are earlier than, later than or simultaneous with the present. | |
| From: Craig Bourne (A Future for Presentism [2006], Intro IIb) | |
| A reaction: Must we choose? Two past events relate to each other, but there is a further relation when 'now' falls between the events. If I must choose, I suppose I go for the A-series view. The B-series is a subsequent feat of imagination. McTaggart agreed. |
| 14006 | Time flows, past is fixed, future is open, future is feared but not past, we remember past, we plan future [Bourne] |
| Full Idea: We say that time 'flows', that the past is 'fixed' but the future is 'open'; we only dread the future, but not the past; we remember the past but not the future; we plan for the future but not the past. | |
| From: Craig Bourne (A Future for Presentism [2006], Intro III) | |
| A reaction: These seem pretty overwhelming reasons for accepting an asymmetry between the past and the future. If you reject that, you seem to be mired in a multitude of contradictions. Your error theory is going to be massive. |
| 12317 | The God of religion results from an encounter, not from a proof [Badiou] |
| Full Idea: The God of metaphysics makes sense of existing according to a proof, while the God of religion makes sense of living according to an encounter | |
| From: Alain Badiou (Briefings on Existence [1998], Prol) |