|
>>
|
No. 43
>>41
Numbers are defined by very small phenomenas, which are defined by us, which means that even if they are to be seen as interchangeable, they can only work as representations created by us. What is a very small phenomena? No doubt there is an exterior event, however the human mind finitises the holistic system so as to be able to work within it, the task of logic. Thus numbers, or phenomena, are only real for us.
>>35
Plato's theory of forms is indeed interesting, but it almost seems as if anything can be appropriated to prove it. Now the usual example is that one has a general idea of what a 'perfect' circle is, despite having never seen a perfect circle - and here we are saying that we have a general idea of the logical function of numbers, which we appropriate forms, and those forms could also be considered imperfect in themselves apart from the logical operation abstracted from the form of the numbers. So what it really seems to be saying is not that these visual forms are perfect, only that they are like events resulting from a knowledge of the perfect, which must have solid knowledge in order to bring about said forms - thus this solid knowledge is the immutable world of form itself. In short, it actually seems to be fairly similar to Kant's distinction between a priori and posteriori, where our a priori cognitive abilities must necessarily have some general principles of perception and understanding, and thus an ideal knowledge of things which transcends mere exterior sensation, yet allows all of our understandings and perceptions of it. Without that, we don't know it.
|
