From: Patsloane-AT-aol.com
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 08:47:36 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: PLC: Spinoza's Ethics


> >The definition of a triangle comes to mind.  I understand the nature of a
>  >triangle, that it has three sides.  I am tempted to imagine a triangle,
but
>  >when I imagine one, I am reminded that it is a "particular" triangle.
 Even
>  >though it has the properties of a triangle, a triangle is more than that.
>  >It is the idea, not the image, of a triangle that is the real thing.
>  >
>  >More later,
>  >Immanuel
>  >
>  
>  Immanuel's example in fact points out the nature of Spinoza's contention
>  about the infinite - that it is *impossible* to understand it if we
compare
>  it to something already experienced.
>  
>  Stirling Newberry
>  
Well, this is a big idea in mathematics, and I had a mathematician tell me
contemptuously that I could have no real understanding of square numbers if I
persisted in visualizing  them as squares.  

That's <his> idea. It so happens the square numbers received their name
because the Pythagoreans liked to play with pebbles, and realized that in the
case of certain numbers, you could lay out that number of pebbles in the
shape of a square.

People should try to develop their ability to visualize, rather than
suppressing it. If they supress it, they become visual idiots, unable to
understand the simplest visual concepts.  

Also, I don't know that I agree with Spinoza on this one. A symbol doesn't
have to share qualia with the object that it symbolizes, and usually doesn't.
  This is why a lion can be a symbol for the British Empire even though the
British Empire isn't a lion.  So why would a symbol for the unspeakable or
unknowable ahve to be unspeakable or unknowable itself?

pat sloane




     --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---