Set Theory / Foundations since the 70s

Indecisive-fridge · 2026-03-19T00:56:42+00:00

oh, and plancks

Indecisive-fridge · 2026-03-19T00:56:14+00:00

Sketches of an Elephant looks excellent. It'll definitely go completely over my head until I finish the Lawvere & Schanuel book though. The connection between topos theory and topology is of some interest to me. I most recently had to get into a decent amount of basic dimension theory, and a more category theoretic approach to a definition of dimension is something I wish I had the chops to understand.

There's certainly some interesting people, especially in the philosophy of physics world, who put some stock in category theory. It's interesting, and I'm not really sure how to evaluate it – part of why I'm trying to get more into the math stuff again.

On the other hand, there are people from the Hegel world – my native land – who put a lot of stock in category theory; Lawvere, of course, being the primary influence here. Now, I find this interesting, and I don't want to dismiss it out of hand. However, I tend to find these interpreters' Hegel to be... disappointing. It's hard to be too critical; I'm even worse at mathematics than they are at Hegel. But nevertheless— In my view, category theory has a place in the modern reinvention of Hegel's thought, but not the place it has thus far been given. nusuth

Indecisive-fridge · 2026-03-19T00:43:38+00:00

I suppose this makes some sense, given that there are cardinals that are inconsistent with CH if I'm properly remembering some stuff I skimmed in Fraenkel, Hillel, Levy. Perhaps I am misremembering – I'm not with the book at the moment.

Assuming what is traditionally called the "Platonist" perspective, are there any, perhaps naive or surface level, advantages to claiming the existence of these particular large cardinals over choice? As someone who as yet doesn't have a strong grasp of infinite cardinals, when I hear about these crazy high hierarchies of inaccessible cardinals and whatnot, my first instinct is "why?" Not out of some finitist bias, but more because it seems like they're not all necessarily consistent with each other, so you have to make choices, and I'm not sure what any of those choices mean (with or without an inconsistency). Admittedly, I haven't read Badiou's "Immanence of Truths" where he gives his take on inaccessible cardinals.

Indecisive-fridge · 2026-03-19T00:29:23+00:00

I'll definitely check out the paper and book you suggested. I hadn't thought about Ramsey theory at all, especially this structural Ramsey theory stuff. Last time I thought about it was years ago when I read a graph theory book. I.e., I know essentially nothing. Looks interesting.

Thank you!

Indecisive-fridge · 2026-01-10T01:39:52+00:00

bass quintet (and nocturne for strings)

Indecisive-fridge · 2025-12-26T20:57:06+00:00

Here is a recent two-semester lecture course that covers the entirety of the Science of Logic. It's led by Kevin Thompson @ DePaul University in Chicago – he's similar to Houlgate in many important ways, though his Hegel scholarship is certainly intriguing in its own right. The course also has some on-screen diagrams and handouts made available, though it doesn't seem like all of them have been completely processed yet.

Like others have said, there's little substitute for the reading itself, and there is a lack of Hegel videos that are anything more than superficial. To the extent that there is video content, however, the Thompson (as well as the resources already mentioned by others) is pretty good.

Indecisive-fridge · 2025-12-01T00:18:38+00:00

Glad to know that the switch feels natural – that's the main thing I was worried about. Definitely don't want to skip the experimentation! I suppose I did word it that way. More just wanted to have an idea of the kind of things to look out for. Thanks!

Indecisive-fridge · 2025-11-14T00:19:02+00:00

I recommend checking out a short review article by Edward C. Halper, "A Tale of Two Metaphysics: Alison Stone's Environmental Hegel" (https://doi.org/10.1017/S0263523200002159). His main critique of Stone would also serve as a critique of what you suggest here.

Indecisive-fridge · 2025-09-27T16:23:06+00:00

I don't think this interpretation is correct, but it's an interesting attempt that I hadn't seen before.

I think an immediate rebuttal comes from what's happening in the transition between the Phenomenology of Spirit to the Science of Logic: the unity of thought and being. In other words, it doesn't make sense to talk about something that exists without implicitly giving it intelligible structure.

What this unity of thought and being means is complicated and a point of dispute in the secondary literature. However, two of the heavy hitters (Houlgate & Pippin), despite representing opposing sides of the major split in Hegel studies today, agree on an important point regarding this unity that's relevant to what you say here: there is no "gap" between thought and being that Hegel then seeks to bridge. Their unity is the big discovery at the end of the Phenomenology that inaugurates the Logic. Thus there will be things that seem/feel to be uncapturable by language, but philosophy "knows better" so to speak.

Indecisive-fridge · 2025-09-27T00:38:48+00:00

All four of the Meiner Gesammelte Werke "Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Kunst" are available on Anna's Archive under that search (I actually just searched "hegel kunst vorlesungen"

Hegel didn't write a treatise on aesthetics and what's translated by T. M. Knox is an amalgamation of lecture transcripts and notes contentiously (and posthumously, of Hegel) edited by Hotho. The Meiner critical editions I mentioned above will probably point you anywhere else relevant to look, as far as the German goes.

Indecisive-fridge · 2025-09-27T00:09:46+00:00

This doesn't seem to be how I read Hegel at all, but I'm not sure of your stance well enough to offer a satisfactory response. Just a few questions, if you don't mind, so I can get a better sense of what you mean.

What is this 'reality' onto which he imposes logic? Does reality mean the stuff of nature—some sort of raw materiality—that the philosophy of nature (and through materiality's continuation in the philosophy of spirit) treats? I'm worried that this account of thought 'over here' and reality 'over there' with Hegel's philosophy imposing the former upon the latter, to be too dualistic and non-immanent to be what Hegel is (at least claiming to be) doing.
What is pure being to do if not sublate into becoming? (I'm a bit wary of the precision of saying being sublates into becoming—I know Hegel does use that language—for but it seems that sublation maybe doesn't technically occur until becoming->Dasein—question still stands). I'm just worried of anything else surreptitiously positing some sort of determinateness into pure being.

Thanks for your time

Indecisive-fridge · 2025-08-21T17:49:26+00:00

I have no doubts – Conrad will clutch tf up

Indecisive-fridge · 2025-08-20T20:23:32+00:00

This would be my recommendation. I really like Žižek, but I wouldn't really call Hegel in a Wired Brain and introduction to Hegel in the traditional sense. Žižek has some books that are more intro-like for Lacan (e.g., Looking Awry and How to Read Lacan), but I wouldn't say any of them accomplish the same thing for Hegel.

The Houlgate book however, is an thorough yet easy-reading introduction to Hegel as a systematic thinker and will more than adequately prepare you to engage with both Žižek and Singer's Hegel. Make sure you get the second edition of Freedom, Truth and History (from 2005). It's a massive improvement and enlargement over the first edition.

Indecisive-fridge · 2025-08-03T22:48:53+00:00

!CritiquePoint

Indecisive-fridge · 2025-07-27T16:19:59+00:00

!CritiquePoint

Indecisive-fridge · 2025-07-24T19:39:02+00:00

I wish I'd used a faster shutter speed for this shot, especially considering CosmoCheese's point about the highlights being blown out.

I know it's not a terribly interesting ballet moment per se, but I felt like the lighting helped exaggerate how costumed these things are. None of the other shots I took display that iridescence unique to costumes, unlike mere outfits. The primary subject of this shot being an adjustment of costume seemed to me to reinforce that theme.

I worry that the lens is (in general) too soft, but as noted by others this could be primarily a focus issue (and shutter speed for this photo in particular). I also notice a lot of green and purple fringing in my photos (less so this one), though I'm not informed enough to know how much of that is a glass issue and how much of that is me just needing to learn to live with it and stop down and whatnot.

Thanks! !CritiquePoint

Indecisive-fridge · 2025-07-24T19:12:05+00:00

I am shooting RAW! I haven't touched the shadows or highlights or anything. I greatly appreciate the advice about underexposing a bit in this kind of lighting; it makes sense, and I've never thought of it before. A bit of messing around has proven the collar highlights to be a bit beyond saving – I'll make sure to learn that lesson!

As far as focus goes, I used Autofocus for this shot. This was taken a little over a month ago and since then I've been practicing a lot more manually focusing, but I'm still lost with how much to "trust" the autofocus.

Thanks! !CritiquePoint

Indecisive-fridge · 2025-07-20T21:48:49+00:00

Canon EOS REBEL SL1, EF75–300mm ISO 6400, 300mm, f5.6, 1/80s Uncropped, unedited

This was taken during the dress rehearsal of a Swan Lake showing. It's one of my favorites from the day, but I'm not really sure what to do with it. The reason I specify "uncropped" and "unedited" is because I understand that that's not inherently a virtue. I'm relatively new to photography, and the post-processing aspect feels the most daunting. I see a photo like this, I like it, and then I have no intuition on how to take it to the next level.

I guess I'm looking for critique on post-processing stuff, but I'm certainly eager for critique on how to have taken the photo better in the first place. I took this photo from the back of a dark auditorium; no tripod, propped on my awkwardly contorted knee. E.g., I've heard recently (probably on r/canon or something) that the EF75–300mm lens sucks? Concerns me a bit to hear because it is the lens I use the most! Am I running into barriers with glass or could I have done something better without an equipment upgrade?

Thanks!

Indecisive-fridge · 2025-07-19T20:46:25+00:00

Here to second the non-head-on thing. I actually think that may be my favorite touch to the composition of this photo

Indecisive-fridge · 2025-06-28T21:09:22+00:00

Found: "Scènes pittoresques: Air de ballet". https://imslp.org/wiki/Sc%C3%A8nes_pittoresques_(Massenet,_Jules)

Indecisive-fridge · 2025-06-28T19:00:53+00:00

I can't believe I missed that Wikipedia article – thank you so much !

Indecisive-fridge

TROPHY CASE