29 ideas
12330 | In ontology, logic dominated language, until logic was mathematized [Badiou] |
12318 | The female body, when taken in its entirety, is the Phallus itself [Badiou] |
12325 | Philosophy has been relieved of physics, cosmology, politics, and now must give up ontology [Badiou] |
12324 | Consensus is the enemy of thought [Badiou] |
12337 | There is 'transivity' iff membership ∈ also means inclusion ⊆ [Badiou] |
12321 | The axiom of choice must accept an indeterminate, indefinable, unconstructible set [Badiou] |
12342 | Topos theory explains the plurality of possible logics [Badiou] |
12341 | Logic is a mathematical account of a universe of relations [Badiou] |
17743 | De Morgan introduced a 'universe of discourse', to replace Boole's universe of 'all things' [De Morgan, by Walicki] |
12335 | Numbers are for measuring and for calculating (and the two must be consistent) [Badiou] |
12334 | There is no single unified definition of number [Badiou] |
12333 | Each type of number has its own characteristic procedure of introduction [Badiou] |
12322 | Must we accept numbers as existing when they no longer consist of units? [Badiou] |
12327 | The undecidability of the Continuum Hypothesis may have ruined or fragmented set theory [Badiou] |
12329 | If mathematics is a logic of the possible, then questions of existence are not intrinsic to it [Badiou] |
12328 | Platonists like axioms and decisions, Aristotelians like definitions, possibilities and logic [Badiou] |
12331 | Logic is definitional, but real mathematics is axiomatic [Badiou] |
12340 | There is no Being as a whole, because there is no set of all sets [Badiou] |
12323 | Existence is Being itself, but only as our thought decides it [Badiou] |
12332 | The modern view of Being comes when we reject numbers as merely successions of One [Badiou] |
12326 | The primitive name of Being is the empty set; in a sense, only the empty set 'is' [Badiou] |
12320 | Ontology is (and always has been) Cantorian mathematics [Badiou] |
19553 | Commitment to 'I have a hand' only makes sense in a context where it has been doubted [Hawthorne] |
19551 | How can we know the heavyweight implications of normal knowledge? Must we distort 'knowledge'? [Hawthorne] |
19552 | We wouldn't know the logical implications of our knowledge if small risks added up to big risks [Hawthorne] |
19554 | Denying closure is denying we know P when we know P and Q, which is absurd in simple cases [Hawthorne] |
12338 | We must either assert or deny any single predicate of any single subject [Badiou] |
12316 | For Enlightenment philosophers, God was no longer involved in politics [Badiou] |
12317 | The God of religion results from an encounter, not from a proof [Badiou] |