Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: .cnI redruM
I understand his left wing approach to the essentially right wing problem of subjective vs. objective truth, but Euclid is only tangential to this theorem and have no idea why he would even be dragged, kicking and screaming, into this discussion.

On a more didactic level, the conundrum can be better expressed as a fluid rather than a concrete problem, for all that’s worth. Of course, one can easily envision a world where all liberal outlooks are expressed in liquid form and all conservative outlooks are expressed as solids, but of course that would depend on the average temperature of such a world, obviously.

I think the Hungarian physicist, Gotig Boldevitch, expressed it best, when he said, in his 1837 Theorem on Negative Intuity, “Sometime in the future, somebody named dead is going to invent me and thrust my imaginary self into some rambling but important sounding incoherence he posts on the internet, whatever that turns out to be.”

Despite his relatively fictitious nature, Boldevitch was very insightful and would only laugh at the evanescent state of truth in a world where political machinations constantly shift the meanings of words rendering “proof” profoundly ethereal, as it were.

12 posted on 02/23/2004 2:18:20 PM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: dead
I understand his left wing approach to the essentially right wing problem of subjective vs. objective truth, but Euclid is only tangential to this theorem and have no idea why he would even be dragged, kicking and screaming, into this discussion.

On a more didactic level, the conundrum can be better expressed as a fluid rather than a concrete problem, for all that’s worth. Of course, one can easily envision a world where all liberal outlooks are expressed in liquid form and all conservative outlooks are expressed as solids, but of course that would depend on the average temperature of such a world, obviously.

I think the Hungarian physicist, Gotig Boldevitch, expressed it best, when he said, in his 1837 Theorem on Negative Intuity, “Sometime in the future, somebody named dead is going to invent me and thrust my imaginary self into some rambling but important sounding incoherence he posts on the internet, whatever that turns out to be.”

Despite his relatively fictitious nature, Boldevitch was very insightful and would only laugh at the evanescent state of truth in a world where political machinations constantly shift the meanings of words rendering “proof” profoundly ethereal, as it were.

Green, man, very green.

16 posted on 02/23/2004 2:20:28 PM PST by Luke Skyfreeper (Michael <a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com/index_real.php">miserable failure</a>Moore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: dead; hellinahandcart
The answer to Boldevitch's question is, of course, 42.
49 posted on 02/23/2004 4:43:43 PM PST by sauropod (I'm Happy, You're Happy, We're ALL Happy! I'm happier than a pig in excrement. Can't you just tell?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: dead
Wow.


Now I know why you have groupies. :-)
52 posted on 02/23/2004 5:20:34 PM PST by stands2reason (Liberal lurkers: stick around, you may just grow a brain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson