>"When calculus as a subject was young this was a live issue which was
>discussed communally by philosophers and mathematicians. Over time two
>traditions developed. As FN (S and B) notes, the issue was resolved in
>the mathematical community by Cauchy's theory of limits, et al, and the
>Calculus was placed on a rigorous foundation. As FN does not note,
>Cauchy's treatment does not solve the philosophic problem but rather it
>eliminates the issue from needing to be considered in Mathematics.
This is really a minor point: whether calsulus as a subject is still widely
discussed in among the mathematicians or not is completely irrelevant (I
can argue that concepts of suture and subject-positioning has been settled
more than a decade ago, but it still seems occasionally to pop out in
papers that pretend to be serious) for the main points of the S&B book; and
these points are: a) po-mo writers are abusing scientific vocabulary, b) in
99% they have only a vague idea what the terms taken from the sciences
actually mean c) po-mo jargon has not only disastrous effect in academia,
but in fact supports right-wing cause. For all interested, you can find a
good article by Chomsky on irrationality of po-mo gibberish and
anti-intellectualism at:
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/chompomoart.html
To John Daigle:
yes, I have left out Anderson and many others I find important.
Greg has written:
>My concern, as per the Nietzsche quotation ("to look at sciecne
in ther persepctive of art.."), has to do with a sense that science seems
to enjoy a strange disciplinary position, at once patroling its own
borders but also poaching, a la cognitivism, into questions of art.
I would say that just the opposite. It seems that only in humanities one
can be a *thinker* of 'general practice' (Deleuze is a good example) and
poach into everything without ever explaining her/his basic principles.
Yes, sometimes it can be fruitful in a more novelistic than novel way. But,
as someone with a degree in philosophy and comparative literature, I should
like to see the discourses separated - literature (or Zen, or astrology, or
city guide, or whatever) doesn't have to explain its basic premises, but
philosophy (or sociology, or nuclear phisics, or psychology...) must do it.
As far as cognitivism is concerned, it is just a sane approach to human
mind and it's products - and arts are one of them. One of the positive
things in cognitivistic approach is to bring some more light into film
studies (or nowdays - media studies) after years of a Lacanian opscurantism.
Cheers,
Boris Vidovic
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if it
were so, it would be: but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."
Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
---------------------------------------------------------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|