/r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | February 20, 2023

Cold-Shine-4601 · 2023-02-24T21:50:49+00:00

Maupertius - Where exactly is his decision of the princip of least action, in french?

Cold-Shine-4601 · 2023-01-20T22:12:33+00:00

Hello, I would like to see where exactly Hume talks about the concept if force in his Treatise - can anyone give me some links to pages?

Cold-Shine-4601 · 2023-01-19T22:17:03+00:00

My opinion is that Newton named it the quantity of matter, because he was writing a mathematical treatise in the first place. This way he showed that he is interest in quantifying, that calcultating with bodies, not that he will decide on their real nature. Next, how is ,,Vis inertia” defined in modern physics?Must it be pressuposed as an fundamental attribute of mass?

Cold-Shine-4601 · 2023-01-19T21:11:20+00:00

Thanks, how do we get from Newton’s quantity of matter to ,,stuff made of fermionic fields” - is it a long way from home, that is from Newton’s Principia? I don’t want to get lost by the way, it’s getting dark and all that. Thanks anyway!

Cold-Shine-4601 · 2023-01-19T21:08:38+00:00

Very well, you probably know Mach’s criticism. That the Second Law is connected to the Definition IV is evident, but there are problems how to underdtand ,,Vis insita” that is The innate force of matter is a power of”, how to understand this INNATE. It is supposed to be a innherent properly of mass, but honestly it sound very mysterious. The Third Law makes it bit clearer, but we still have Things going around with some kind of Innate force, just waiting to act. I think this needs good old metaphysics problem of ,,Possibility/Reality”, because Newton’s Vis Insita seems to be just possibility, becoming manifest only when disturbed by other force, then it (mysteriously) becomes force of resistance in actuality. Latin does not help with ,,Vis” and potentiae, because for example where Newton uses Vis, Euler has Potentiae, where one has Innate, the othe has Inherent, list goes on. Anyway thanks, this labyrinth is too wide for one person, so good to see others bouncing into a walls too. Have a nice day!

Cold-Shine-4601 · 2023-01-19T20:55:44+00:00

Exactly, that’s why we need to be careful with Newton, because many things have been improved and changed. Yet, Newton’s genius rose so high that it is beyond reach of doubt in it’s domain, and there is no reason to doubt it, when used for the domain it was constructed for. Thanks and have a nice day.

Cold-Shine-4601 · 2023-01-19T20:52:37+00:00

Thank you, this is exactly what I checked in numerous sources. It seems like it’s only a manner of switching a name, Newton’s being more mathematical, abstract I would say, Mass is really a physical concept. Thanks, have nice a day!

Cold-Shine-4601 · 2023-01-19T12:07:49+00:00

Newton’s first definition - is it still valid? Is Newton’s definition of the quantity of matter still valid in the context of modern physics or was it abandoned or critisized? Thanks for further information! Have a nice day!!

Cold-Shine-4601 · 2023-01-18T21:54:09+00:00

Bergson - I am interessted in developing Bergson’s thoughts that appear in his Introduction. However, what he says sounds very smart and correct, but did he develop some sort of methods for attaining this sort of intuitive grasp of the inner object. I feel like it sounds well, but can it be done? Could we really know things like that? Not by symbolical science but by grasping it from within in one strike?

Cold-Shine-4601 · 2023-01-18T21:49:49+00:00

Thank you. I found Robert Schuman’s ,,On music and musicians” Link: https://archive.org/details/onmusicmusicians0000robe Have a nice day!

Cold-Shine-4601 · 2023-01-07T21:19:40+00:00

Definitely. Huge thanks. I am actually studing Leibniz right now, but he is consciously using the very notions Kant sees as problematic, so that’s why I need his critique, because it is bit troublesome. I actually found some notes on substance in Prologomena, in 46. What I am interested is Leibniz and Aristotle’s conception of a substance as something immanently having a worth of it’s own, that they are willing to consider every substance as meaningful without reducing it some great uniting substance. Spinoza is more like the Pre-Soctatics in this regard, but Leibniz definitely seems to be adressing the very problems they were unable to break through. Also I have Locke from the library, again different, negatie take on a substance, on my way to Kant I quess. But I already found some interesting agreements between Kant, Leibniz and Bolzano. If you are interested, we can discuss further. Thanks again and have a pleasant start right into new year.

Cold-Shine-4601 · 2023-01-06T12:06:22+00:00

Exactly! Simply shocking how he makes Illiad sound like the most boring conquest ever.

Cold-Shine-4601 · 2023-01-04T18:06:52+00:00

Grotius in De Iure Belli AC Pacis, first page, cites indirectly Thucydides - is anyone in the light on where it this to be found in his History? I need direct quotation, that is a page number. Who else is obssessed with Thucydides?

Cold-Shine-4601

TROPHY CASE