The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

New Harvard math

No. 2,574
Harvard Promotes Claim that ‘2+2=5’

Later in her life, Ayn Rand embarked on
a study of mathematics, attracted no doubt by its necessity for precision and
exactitude, but also I think perhaps to rescue the field from the modern
philosophers.

You should always think of these statements as associated with an underlying reality,”
Carr wrote.
He Insinuates that
there are multiple realities, not just one.
If you think that’s
crazy for a Harvard professor to say, try Wkileaks’ coverage of the
Set
Theory
and then wade into Plato’s discussion of Kant’s theory of Mathematics. The idea behind set theory
began in the late 19th century.
For
example, if a subject says
, “The sun shines on
the stone; the stone grows warm,” all he perceives are phenomena. His
judgment is contingent and holds no necessity. But if he says, “The
sunshine causes the stone to warm,” he subsumes the perception under the
category of causality, which is not found in the perception, and necessarily
synthesizes the concept sunshine with the concept heat, producing a necessarily
universally true judgment.”
Carr is obviously a Kantian. Something
underlies the number two thus changing its value to X allowing Winston Smith
write 2+2 = 4, and not 2+2 = 5 or 50. Carrr bills himself as a data analyst, not a mathematician. What is contained in his data? Numbers, objects, entities with names? Somethings?
From the lexicon
With the grasp of the
(implicit) concept “unit,” man reaches the conceptual level of cognition which
consists of two interrelated fields: the conceptual and the mathematical. The process
of concept-formation is, in large part, a mathematical process.


When Winston says that “freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two makes
four,” he is asserting that truth exists independently of the Party’s
ideology. Crucially, this also asserts that the conditions of truth rest in
part upon the external world; if Winston has the freedom to say that “two
plus two make four,” he has the freedom to acknowledge existence
independent of the Party’s say-so. 


If you’re, ambitious, dogged, and hearty enough to read
the
Plato
entry on Kant’s essay on mathematics, you may wind up, as I did, substituting
the terms “synthetic” and “synthesis” with “elastic” and “elasticity, which
would mean the number could mean anything or any value.” If you can read
perhaps a fraction of Plato’s explanation of what Kant was claiming what
mathematics was or wasn’t., enduring all the Kantian gibberish without your
mind becoming twirly, then you’re a better man than I am. “Intuition,”
“construction” are terms that occur repeatedly in Kant’s discourse and also in Wiki’s explanation of it.

Kareem Carr tweeted: “Statements like “2+2 = 4” are abstractions. What
that means is they’re generalizations of ‘something’. You should always think
of these statements as associated with an underlying reality.” Generalizations
“synthetically” divorced from objectivity and reality and associated with an
“intuitive” (non-objective) sense of what “something” may be. Carr uses “2+2=5”
as a scarecrow to demonstrate his point. 

But his numbers ultimately are based
on their actual, recognized value. His numbers are not seen as absolutes or have unchanging values.



He employs a variation of what Rand calls a
stolen concept .” In Orwell’s 1984, Smith
writes in his diary: “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make
four. If that is granted, all else follows.” (p. 72,
Berkley
edition, afterword by Erich Fromm)

”As they feed on stolen
wealth in body, so they feed on stolen concepts in mind, and proclaim that
honesty consists of refusing to know that one is stealing. As they use effects
while denying causes, so they use our concepts while denying the roots and the
existence of the concepts they are using.

“When modern
philosophers declare that axioms are a matter of arbitrary choice, and proceed
to choose complex, derivative concepts as the alleged axioms of their alleged
reasoning, one can observe that their statements imply and depend on “existence,”
“consciousness,” “identity,” which they profess to negate, but which are
smuggled into their arguments in the form of unacknowledged, “stolen” concepts.”

What completes Smith’s
statement – “all else follows” – acknowleges open heart surgery, space
travel, computers, building skyscrapers, and everything we take for granted
today and which depends on reason and objectivity. None of it would be possible if we relied on “intuition” and the
“synthesis” of problems. A caveman wouldn’t even be able to light a fire if he followed Carr’s — or Kant’s — prescription for perceiving and knowing anything.

Our caveman would freeze
to death before his elastic “intuition” allowed him to discover or “synthesize
the cause of his cold.
———————————————————————————
Blogger’s note: The illustration is of me preparing to address an audience on Sparrowhawk at the Mariner’s Museum in Newport News, VA.

Previous

BLM Mafia

Next

Nihilism

3 Comments

  1. Teresa

    It is mindboggling that anyone could get an organization stupid enough to pay money to people who make such idiotic statements. I guess it is clever of them to protect their statements with the idea of other realities that could only be believed by those who are sure there is something out there. Think of all the people who pay the salaries of priests and preachers!

    BTW I automatically switched Kant's and Plato's names in my mind as I knew what you meant. Also, how long ago was the picture taken?

  2. Edward Cline

    That photo was taken by a fan in the early 1980s.

  3. Joe

    Do these geniuses that claim reality is optional still check both ways before crossing the street?

    Great article Ed.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén