Paul wrote:
Sometimes the problems we fret over are
> a
> simply consequence of the language we employ.
I fall prey to both this impatience with the consequences of language in
metaphysical discussions of form, and also the ease of using such
constructions in talking about painting, film, etc. Threeness? Plato?
Heidegger said that the Forms really just turned truth into what is
visible...thus forgetting its original meaning, its "mystery". But that's
another story.
John AW wrote:
Mathematics is the
> manipulation of content-potential (think of the endless construction of
> word problems in mathematics and the constant association of mathematics
> with the practical applications of mathematics-thus filling the form).
> Pure number theory is the continual postponement of this potential--to the
> point of abstraction. So isn't the form an empty, amorphous vessel for
> content--thus defined by content, indivisible from it? Form emptied of
> content is itself content...
"The continual postponement of content-potential"...wow, that has such an
upside-down-Aristotelian ring to it. I think that the idea of postponement
or deferral or putting-in-abeyance might be very useful in talking about
"pure form", not just in mathematics but in other places as well.
Sarah Barmak
Undergraduate, Philosophy and English
U Toronto
*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**
|