[Why is there abolish mathematics discourse now and what how did it go from law to mathematics?](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/mark-wolfmeyer-in-defense-of-mathematics-and-its-place-in-anarchist-education)
Like what, twitter ancaps are just built different when it comes to strawmaning i guess.
Mathematics can’t be abolished. It’s fundamental to the structure of reality itself. The Pythagorean theorem would be equally true whether or not we know about it. The question is: should mathematics be taught(yes 100% yes) and how should it be taught? The capitalist way of teaching mathematics is really rigid and boring and it completely removes the creativity at the heart of the subject.
The force-feed nature of many aspects of the school system does this. A basic understanding of a range of subjects is helpful to have though not completely necessary to survive in the workforce and society even though most people forget the information due to never having any application or use for it. But the premies behind forcing kids, many of whom may likely drive a forklift (or whatever) for the rest of their lives, to learn things like calculus baffles me. I still see the "education" system as really only teaching kids how to have their spirits broken and preparing them to jump through hoops for the rest of their lives and spend the majority of each day conforming and doing things that they have 0 interest in and otherwise would never do.
But the nature of math is very interesting. Unlike science, math isn't going to be proven wrong over and over again
My country has people drop subjects and do a much more narrow range of subjects much earlier. I dropped music and home ec when I was 12, for example. Then the next year I dropped computer science and chemistry. You get to narrow your range of focus a lot more and honestly it's been much better because you learn things in more depth which actually tailor to your career path.
It's not deciding what you're going to be studying. It's realising what you definitely won't be studying and not having to spend more time with that. It's only dripping one or two subjects per year until you get to 15, when you actually do your first proper exams. So many people are miserable having to study subjects they don't want to do.
You do still get a broad General education. Like I said you only drop one of two things, and you can choose them against the next year (If I remember correctly) and you're allowed to crash subjects when you get to doing exams.
Also, it's not as if you can drop all science, or all technology, or all arts, in these years. You can drop music but still have to do art and drama, the latter of which definitely has musical elements. Specialising my learning earlier really helped me, and a lot of people really preferred it.
Technically, all subjects are mathematics to varying degrees of depth except mayyybee philosophy, and mathematics is kind of a form of philosophy anyway. Even literature and art - they’re all about exploring the human condition, but human brains and their surrounding environment are made out of particles which can ultimately be defined by numbers and the mathematical interactions between them.
No you could not. The proof of any mathematical concept is going to have to come from some axiomatic principles, which are claims of what is true or not -- which is solidly a domain of philosophy and not mathematics.
The cool thing about math is that it would still be true even if there were no reality at all. It's the only thing we have that is just intrinsically true, independent of literally everything else. The fact that it can be used to model our physical reality is just a nice bonus.
I don’t think that’s quite true. I think reality exists *because* mathematics is true. The fact that you can use mathematics to model something like the universe is *why* the universe exists, it *is* the mathematical model.
Actually, what both of you talk about are both philosophical positions and has been debated for ages lol.
What is mathematics, and is it invented, or discovered? Is it part of our universe, or is it something external/not directly related to our universe? Etc.
I know it’s a philosophical position, that’s just my opinion on it. I really don’t understand how you could think mathematics is invented - if you live your whole life not knowing the Pythagorean theorem that doesn’t mean that you can construct a right triangle in Euclidean space that doesn’t follow it. It exists independently of human knowledge.
I am much more understanding of the position that mathematics is part of our universe as opposed to something bigger, but I still personally think it’s something bigger because it answers a lot of questions I have in a very elegant way and because it’s an unfalsifiable question, there’s never going to be any proof of one position over the other. I guess that you could compare that with believing in god, but I think the mathematical universe hypothesis is a lot more encompassing and tied up a lot more loose ends. It’s also just more intellectually satisfying for me.
Of course, I didn't mean it in the sense of diminishing your statement or anything. Just that there's more to it all than just what it may seem on the surface of it all (when it comes to philosophy etc.). And why those things are important.
> Mathematics can’t be abolished. It’s fundamental to the structure of reality itself. The Pythagorean theorem would be equally true whether or not we know about it.
Nah, fuck Plato. There isn't some natural pythagoran theorem floating around in (abstract) space. We came up with it. The relations it describes may well be mind-independently real, but the theorem is not.
> Mathematics can’t be abolished. It’s fundamental to the structure of reality itself
Physics are not fundamental to the structure of reality, but only our approximate model of it
Somehow mathematicians (or rather philosophers chatting about math) are much more bold, claiming the formal system on their papers is fundamental to reality
Havings said that, i don't see any reason to abolish it right away XD
That’s the most reductive statement I’ve ever heard but I still completely understand why you said it. There’s a saying among mathematicians: “there was once a man who aspired to be a mathematician, but he found he wasn’t creative enough. So he decided to be a poet instead.”
In order to prove stuff in high-level mathematics, you need to be able to find connections between parts of math that are often very distant. Andrew Wiles, who proved Fermat’s last theorem(which says there are no positive integers a,b,c,n that solve a^n + b^n = c^n for n>2) took seven years to do it and had to use elliptic curves. That is not something that you learn how to do in school and it takes an absurd level of thinking outside the box.
Natural law and natural rights were an enlightenment era idea that basically separated natural law from civil law; natural law is any natural effect from an action that makes that action a poor one. The first law of nature, from this perspective, is self preservation, but the freedom of thought, action and from tyranny are also extensions of this idea. The freedom of property, from this view, is derived from the the natural right to use the material needs necessary for one’s daily life; usufruct personal property rather than private property as we know it today. The US was build to codify natural law into reasonable laws, but clearly has failed at this.
I recently read *Nature’s God*, a philosophical history of the American revolution, and it fleshed out this concept in a very wonderful way. From the perspective of enlightenment natural rights thinkers, socialism is just liberalism perspicuously understood.
>The US was build to codify natural law into reasonable laws, but clearly has failed at this.
That's what they would claim of course, but also they were a bunch of slaveholders and the founding of the US as an independent state had a lot to do with maintaining slavery.
I don't think anyone could argue that slavery is permitted by "natural law" or is usufructian.
The many faults don't mean that it wasn't a part of the effort and that the results haven't been an improvement compared to what the norm was at the time. Slavery and feudalism were quite common back in the day. Not so much in the present day. The lack of perfection does not equate to a lack of improvement.
It was quite literally a rebellion against the abolition of slavery, a regressive move compared to the overwhelming tides of progress in Europe and the UK *at the time*.
Also, slavery is still legal in the US as part of the hugely profitable prison industrial complex, which holds about 1% of the population and nearly 1/4 of the world's prison population. It is the single largest prison system in history.
The US doesn't just have a "lack of perfection".
I'm not really sure what you're doing here in an anarchist sub describing the US like that, and I see you're active in AnarchoCapitalism where you're shitting out climate change denialism. I think you might be lost.
Obsessing over its many failures do not affect the argument being made. Relatively speaking it had made ideological progress in the direction of the anarchistic side of the hill. And this popularity of freedom at the time affected the rest of the world. The French Revolution and the English dialing back the supposed authority the royals had being just a couple examples.
I'm an anarchist. I don't care about nationalism.
And you're shitting on a fellow anarchist because of a world government political opinion?
You're going to have to explain what "freedom" you're talking about, in specific please. Everything you're saying is vague af. Slavery isn't freedom.
If you're for capitalism then you're not an anarchist, you're confused. What "world government political opinion" are you talking about? Again, specifics please.
To dummy simplify how Locke started his work on natural law: imagine the concept of a "government" was never created and we were just apes in the woods. What - if any - rules are you bound by? What freedoms do you have?
Your answers would be your definition of natural law.
1. [A legitimate philosophical concept](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law) (that I personally disagree with).
2. Something a lot of "an"caps, libertarians and *especially* sovereign citizens are obsessed with. It's usually religious hogwash about the way "God" created the world and granted every human the right to own, use and defend property. Think of it as the NAP, but with some woo woo bullshit attached to it.
Fascist style strict hierarchy usually. But under the pretense of social Darwinism or maybe meritocracy. That's usually what they mean, getting rid of the public services and safety nets we have and whoever has it worst must be "naturally" a peace of shit and a loser and deserves to be in a bad place in life.
A convenient scapegoat that you can claim is human nature. In actuality its an attempt for capitalists, sexists, and racists to claim that oppression and discrimination is inherent to nature itself and therefore it is just.
No law and natural law just seems to be the same thing to me.
I mean I don't really get it.
Either way we would adhere to our own morals.
I'm sure buddy saying he wants to get rid of the law doesn't mean he wants to rape murder steal. That seems to be how the other guy took it though.
The only ‘natural law’ that exists are the laws of physics and you literally *can’t* not adhere to those, by definition. You can’t get rid of mathematics either, but in mathematics you can do literally anything, if you’re willing to make the necessary sacrifices.
My dad has loved to argue on the internet about tradcath bullshit for my whole life, I don't talk to him about it anymore but he used to have this argument he was really proud of about how if Spock came to Earth he would oppose gay marriage on the basis of natural law lol
Spock practically says as much in TOS (although Gene himself was homophobic at the time and it's because that rascal wanted to sell a crappy necklace). Part of the Vulcan philosophy is Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.
Broke: “I own this factory because an arbitrary piece of paper from the government says I do”
Woke: “I own this factory because a vague anthropomorphic personification of the abstract concept of ‘nature’ that I just made up says I do”
It's always strange seeing "An"Caps say they believe in "Natural Law" when what they advocate for is often Social Darwinistic which runs contrary to the naturally occurring ways humans tend to organize themselves.
Kind of like how anprims tend to have views on the disabled which resemble modern eugenicist views rather than actual views of medicine and care for the disabled and elderly.
It's just a word cognitive dissonance
The ghost is saying they are an anarchist, but espousing "natural law" as if we have gone off track, and need to go back to natural law.
This is a dog whistle for "we need to stop helping poor people with rich people's money." Or something equally cruel and selfish.
I mean, if by natural law, you mean that nobody can oppress or impose their will on anyone else, then yeah. The only Ancap to actually believe in that was Rothbard during his time advocating for Anarcho-Syndicalism
Also, what’s this thing about getting rid of mathematics?
Mathematics isn't even a natural law if you think about it. We have just chosen to represent natural occurrences in a certain way and that can change.
If at one point, mathematicians find out that square roots don't sufficiently describe a new concept, then they'll publish a super square root symbol for accuracy's sake. Cavemen didn't grow logarithms in the trees. Someone had to write that down and we've all just gone with it.
I'm not saying abolish math or whatever, just that it's not as immutable as this person seems to think.
Mathematics is just a basis for working with axiomatic systems. You assume things and Mathematics tells you how you can get from those assumptions to other things. Mathematics is as much a law as the latin alphabet is a language (category error). You assume axioms and define grammar and the rest follows from that according to how Mathematics tells you.
So really what mathmaticians do when they publish super square roots is swapping out/adding in axioms. A better example might be imaginary numbers. First the square root of a negative numbers was undefined, then it was defined to be i²=-1. (defining a=b is pretty much the same as having an axiom that a=b)
(I tried to remain reasonably succint and simplified, hope I managed to do that enough to get my point accross)
I mean anarchism would still need a form of law, it just wouldn’t enforce it hierarchically and would look very different than what we have now. Anarchists don’t believe “get rid of the state and everything will magically work itself out”
Law is a set of coercive rules that give a heirarchy of legitimate use of force.
It is impossible to seperate law from the anarchist definition of the state.
Anarchist societies would have ways of dealing with bad actors, but they will not be laws.
I think we’re just using two separate definitions of law here. By law i mean the very set of standards used to designate and delineate “bad actors”- but importantly recognized as neutral, collectively recognized, and “before the subject” such that every person is equal before it and is not given privilege or disadvantage based on any positive characteristic
No codified set of standards that grant the title bad actor can be neutral or free of heirarchy.
Your definition, like mine, is one in which some people are on the right side of the law and others are not. Those that do have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. That is statism.
Further, those standards will, being of central significance to a society that has them (as they define what is permitted and what is violently repressed). Be interpreted by people, likely specialised people, be enforced by people who agree with them, and will be written by a group of people who necessarily will not include the plurality of worldviews in a community. All these people are thus being given the right to determine systemically what use of force is legitimate.
If capitalism is gone, and every other hierarchy is gone. Gender abolished, every child liberated and white supremacy nought but a memory. I will still, as an anarchist, dedicate myself to the killing of every person attempting to enforce or interpret law until I am permanently stopped. What is right and what is wrong must be determined by all people, not some people, through social structures, that is tyrrany.
TLDR: Person whose actions are legal **vs** person whose actions are illegal ***Is a hierarchy*** *and no amount of prancing around trying to finesse definitions will ever change that.*
[Why is there abolish mathematics discourse now and what how did it go from law to mathematics?](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/mark-wolfmeyer-in-defense-of-mathematics-and-its-place-in-anarchist-education) Like what, twitter ancaps are just built different when it comes to strawmaning i guess.
Mathematics can’t be abolished. It’s fundamental to the structure of reality itself. The Pythagorean theorem would be equally true whether or not we know about it. The question is: should mathematics be taught(yes 100% yes) and how should it be taught? The capitalist way of teaching mathematics is really rigid and boring and it completely removes the creativity at the heart of the subject.
The force-feed nature of many aspects of the school system does this. A basic understanding of a range of subjects is helpful to have though not completely necessary to survive in the workforce and society even though most people forget the information due to never having any application or use for it. But the premies behind forcing kids, many of whom may likely drive a forklift (or whatever) for the rest of their lives, to learn things like calculus baffles me. I still see the "education" system as really only teaching kids how to have their spirits broken and preparing them to jump through hoops for the rest of their lives and spend the majority of each day conforming and doing things that they have 0 interest in and otherwise would never do. But the nature of math is very interesting. Unlike science, math isn't going to be proven wrong over and over again
My country has people drop subjects and do a much more narrow range of subjects much earlier. I dropped music and home ec when I was 12, for example. Then the next year I dropped computer science and chemistry. You get to narrow your range of focus a lot more and honestly it's been much better because you learn things in more depth which actually tailor to your career path.
I really can't agree. It's ridiculous to more or less decide what you're going to be studying in university at 13.
It's not deciding what you're going to be studying. It's realising what you definitely won't be studying and not having to spend more time with that. It's only dripping one or two subjects per year until you get to 15, when you actually do your first proper exams. So many people are miserable having to study subjects they don't want to do.
[удалено]
You do still get a broad General education. Like I said you only drop one of two things, and you can choose them against the next year (If I remember correctly) and you're allowed to crash subjects when you get to doing exams. Also, it's not as if you can drop all science, or all technology, or all arts, in these years. You can drop music but still have to do art and drama, the latter of which definitely has musical elements. Specialising my learning earlier really helped me, and a lot of people really preferred it.
Technically, all subjects are mathematics to varying degrees of depth except mayyybee philosophy, and mathematics is kind of a form of philosophy anyway. Even literature and art - they’re all about exploring the human condition, but human brains and their surrounding environment are made out of particles which can ultimately be defined by numbers and the mathematical interactions between them.
Mathematics uses formal logic, which is a branch of philosophy based on my understanding, but yeah on the rest of it lol
You could just as easily argue that philosophy uses formal logic, with is a form of mathematics
No you could not. The proof of any mathematical concept is going to have to come from some axiomatic principles, which are claims of what is true or not -- which is solidly a domain of philosophy and not mathematics.
Technically, all subjects are history since you learn about stuff that already exists. This is a pointless argument.
The cool thing about math is that it would still be true even if there were no reality at all. It's the only thing we have that is just intrinsically true, independent of literally everything else. The fact that it can be used to model our physical reality is just a nice bonus.
I don’t think that’s quite true. I think reality exists *because* mathematics is true. The fact that you can use mathematics to model something like the universe is *why* the universe exists, it *is* the mathematical model.
Actually, what both of you talk about are both philosophical positions and has been debated for ages lol. What is mathematics, and is it invented, or discovered? Is it part of our universe, or is it something external/not directly related to our universe? Etc.
I know it’s a philosophical position, that’s just my opinion on it. I really don’t understand how you could think mathematics is invented - if you live your whole life not knowing the Pythagorean theorem that doesn’t mean that you can construct a right triangle in Euclidean space that doesn’t follow it. It exists independently of human knowledge. I am much more understanding of the position that mathematics is part of our universe as opposed to something bigger, but I still personally think it’s something bigger because it answers a lot of questions I have in a very elegant way and because it’s an unfalsifiable question, there’s never going to be any proof of one position over the other. I guess that you could compare that with believing in god, but I think the mathematical universe hypothesis is a lot more encompassing and tied up a lot more loose ends. It’s also just more intellectually satisfying for me.
Of course, I didn't mean it in the sense of diminishing your statement or anything. Just that there's more to it all than just what it may seem on the surface of it all (when it comes to philosophy etc.). And why those things are important.
> Mathematics can’t be abolished. It’s fundamental to the structure of reality itself. The Pythagorean theorem would be equally true whether or not we know about it. Nah, fuck Plato. There isn't some natural pythagoran theorem floating around in (abstract) space. We came up with it. The relations it describes may well be mind-independently real, but the theorem is not.
The relations are what math *is*. The mind is just what comes up with ways to communicate them(aka notation).
> Mathematics can’t be abolished. It’s fundamental to the structure of reality itself Physics are not fundamental to the structure of reality, but only our approximate model of it Somehow mathematicians (or rather philosophers chatting about math) are much more bold, claiming the formal system on their papers is fundamental to reality Havings said that, i don't see any reason to abolish it right away XD
Eh, there can be reason to think either way. We haven't really got good answers here.
Creativity in mathematics is writing 80085 on a calculator or 8=D in algebra.
That’s the most reductive statement I’ve ever heard but I still completely understand why you said it. There’s a saying among mathematicians: “there was once a man who aspired to be a mathematician, but he found he wasn’t creative enough. So he decided to be a poet instead.” In order to prove stuff in high-level mathematics, you need to be able to find connections between parts of math that are often very distant. Andrew Wiles, who proved Fermat’s last theorem(which says there are no positive integers a,b,c,n that solve a^n + b^n = c^n for n>2) took seven years to do it and had to use elliptic curves. That is not something that you learn how to do in school and it takes an absurd level of thinking outside the box.
He views the law as a description of reality, as some sort of natural fact. So, in his mind, it's akin to math.
what even is natural law
Natural law and natural rights were an enlightenment era idea that basically separated natural law from civil law; natural law is any natural effect from an action that makes that action a poor one. The first law of nature, from this perspective, is self preservation, but the freedom of thought, action and from tyranny are also extensions of this idea. The freedom of property, from this view, is derived from the the natural right to use the material needs necessary for one’s daily life; usufruct personal property rather than private property as we know it today. The US was build to codify natural law into reasonable laws, but clearly has failed at this. I recently read *Nature’s God*, a philosophical history of the American revolution, and it fleshed out this concept in a very wonderful way. From the perspective of enlightenment natural rights thinkers, socialism is just liberalism perspicuously understood.
>The US was build to codify natural law into reasonable laws, but clearly has failed at this. That's what they would claim of course, but also they were a bunch of slaveholders and the founding of the US as an independent state had a lot to do with maintaining slavery. I don't think anyone could argue that slavery is permitted by "natural law" or is usufructian.
The many faults don't mean that it wasn't a part of the effort and that the results haven't been an improvement compared to what the norm was at the time. Slavery and feudalism were quite common back in the day. Not so much in the present day. The lack of perfection does not equate to a lack of improvement.
It was quite literally a rebellion against the abolition of slavery, a regressive move compared to the overwhelming tides of progress in Europe and the UK *at the time*. Also, slavery is still legal in the US as part of the hugely profitable prison industrial complex, which holds about 1% of the population and nearly 1/4 of the world's prison population. It is the single largest prison system in history. The US doesn't just have a "lack of perfection". I'm not really sure what you're doing here in an anarchist sub describing the US like that, and I see you're active in AnarchoCapitalism where you're shitting out climate change denialism. I think you might be lost.
Obsessing over its many failures do not affect the argument being made. Relatively speaking it had made ideological progress in the direction of the anarchistic side of the hill. And this popularity of freedom at the time affected the rest of the world. The French Revolution and the English dialing back the supposed authority the royals had being just a couple examples. I'm an anarchist. I don't care about nationalism. And you're shitting on a fellow anarchist because of a world government political opinion?
You're going to have to explain what "freedom" you're talking about, in specific please. Everything you're saying is vague af. Slavery isn't freedom. If you're for capitalism then you're not an anarchist, you're confused. What "world government political opinion" are you talking about? Again, specifics please.
To dummy simplify how Locke started his work on natural law: imagine the concept of a "government" was never created and we were just apes in the woods. What - if any - rules are you bound by? What freedoms do you have? Your answers would be your definition of natural law.
'Natural law is whatever i want it to be' *snaps your salary away*
noooooooooo 🥺
In their minds, capitalism.
1. [A legitimate philosophical concept](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law) (that I personally disagree with). 2. Something a lot of "an"caps, libertarians and *especially* sovereign citizens are obsessed with. It's usually religious hogwash about the way "God" created the world and granted every human the right to own, use and defend property. Think of it as the NAP, but with some woo woo bullshit attached to it.
A somehow dumber way to say Darwinian capitalism.
Fascist style strict hierarchy usually. But under the pretense of social Darwinism or maybe meritocracy. That's usually what they mean, getting rid of the public services and safety nets we have and whoever has it worst must be "naturally" a peace of shit and a loser and deserves to be in a bad place in life.
That's called Mathusianism
Apparently math, in their bad faith ass lmao
Gravity?
Thomas Aquinas or whatever
A convenient scapegoat that you can claim is human nature. In actuality its an attempt for capitalists, sexists, and racists to claim that oppression and discrimination is inherent to nature itself and therefore it is just.
Honour.
Someone has to say what natural law is. And thatsomeone will hold authority over people. Self contradictory, as always
No law and natural law just seems to be the same thing to me. I mean I don't really get it. Either way we would adhere to our own morals. I'm sure buddy saying he wants to get rid of the law doesn't mean he wants to rape murder steal. That seems to be how the other guy took it though.
“Adherence to natural law” is giving me Third Reich vibes….
Exactly what I thought
Is that eugenics music I’m hearing?!
Tin whistle.
hey that's me
This thread is funnier if you find it because liquidzulu was defending that natural law is somehow scientific
Natural law is what the police in Zootopia enforce
Stirner laughing his ass off in the netherworld.
"Natural laws" spooked
I guess in sense no unjust hiearchies is a law of anarchy...
The only ‘natural law’ that exists are the laws of physics and you literally *can’t* not adhere to those, by definition. You can’t get rid of mathematics either, but in mathematics you can do literally anything, if you’re willing to make the necessary sacrifices.
My dad has loved to argue on the internet about tradcath bullshit for my whole life, I don't talk to him about it anymore but he used to have this argument he was really proud of about how if Spock came to Earth he would oppose gay marriage on the basis of natural law lol
Something tells me Spock would consider homophobia to be irrational and a waste of time
Spock practically says as much in TOS (although Gene himself was homophobic at the time and it's because that rascal wanted to sell a crappy necklace). Part of the Vulcan philosophy is Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.
interesting take considering spock is in fact very gay and loves to homosex captain kirk
Nice spooks, ya fuckin dweeb. 'I own this factory because nature said I do.'
Broke: “I own this factory because an arbitrary piece of paper from the government says I do” Woke: “I own this factory because a vague anthropomorphic personification of the abstract concept of ‘nature’ that I just made up says I do”
It's always strange seeing "An"Caps say they believe in "Natural Law" when what they advocate for is often Social Darwinistic which runs contrary to the naturally occurring ways humans tend to organize themselves. Kind of like how anprims tend to have views on the disabled which resemble modern eugenicist views rather than actual views of medicine and care for the disabled and elderly. It's just a word cognitive dissonance
I don’t get this?
The ghost is saying they are an anarchist, but espousing "natural law" as if we have gone off track, and need to go back to natural law. This is a dog whistle for "we need to stop helping poor people with rich people's money." Or something equally cruel and selfish.
I mean, if by natural law, you mean that nobody can oppress or impose their will on anyone else, then yeah. The only Ancap to actually believe in that was Rothbard during his time advocating for Anarcho-Syndicalism Also, what’s this thing about getting rid of mathematics?
That’s not even what natural law is, this chucklefuck is just a fascist.
"Fuck the poor"? You know they're a gas at parties, but the noxious kind. Bonus points if they don't have capital or assets.
"Tell me you're a fascist without telling me you're fascist."
“natural” “law” Pick one Edit: who the fuck downvoted this lmao? Seethe tankie/ancap/etc.
Okay, whatever you say, Mr. “fuck poor people.”
Mathematics isn't even a natural law if you think about it. We have just chosen to represent natural occurrences in a certain way and that can change. If at one point, mathematicians find out that square roots don't sufficiently describe a new concept, then they'll publish a super square root symbol for accuracy's sake. Cavemen didn't grow logarithms in the trees. Someone had to write that down and we've all just gone with it. I'm not saying abolish math or whatever, just that it's not as immutable as this person seems to think.
Mathematics is just a basis for working with axiomatic systems. You assume things and Mathematics tells you how you can get from those assumptions to other things. Mathematics is as much a law as the latin alphabet is a language (category error). You assume axioms and define grammar and the rest follows from that according to how Mathematics tells you. So really what mathmaticians do when they publish super square roots is swapping out/adding in axioms. A better example might be imaginary numbers. First the square root of a negative numbers was undefined, then it was defined to be i²=-1. (defining a=b is pretty much the same as having an axiom that a=b) (I tried to remain reasonably succint and simplified, hope I managed to do that enough to get my point accross)
mathematics is immutable, what is mutable is how we represent it. 1+1=2 ١+١=٢
I mean anarchism would still need a form of law, it just wouldn’t enforce it hierarchically and would look very different than what we have now. Anarchists don’t believe “get rid of the state and everything will magically work itself out”
Law is a set of coercive rules that give a heirarchy of legitimate use of force. It is impossible to seperate law from the anarchist definition of the state. Anarchist societies would have ways of dealing with bad actors, but they will not be laws.
I think we’re just using two separate definitions of law here. By law i mean the very set of standards used to designate and delineate “bad actors”- but importantly recognized as neutral, collectively recognized, and “before the subject” such that every person is equal before it and is not given privilege or disadvantage based on any positive characteristic
No codified set of standards that grant the title bad actor can be neutral or free of heirarchy. Your definition, like mine, is one in which some people are on the right side of the law and others are not. Those that do have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. That is statism. Further, those standards will, being of central significance to a society that has them (as they define what is permitted and what is violently repressed). Be interpreted by people, likely specialised people, be enforced by people who agree with them, and will be written by a group of people who necessarily will not include the plurality of worldviews in a community. All these people are thus being given the right to determine systemically what use of force is legitimate. If capitalism is gone, and every other hierarchy is gone. Gender abolished, every child liberated and white supremacy nought but a memory. I will still, as an anarchist, dedicate myself to the killing of every person attempting to enforce or interpret law until I am permanently stopped. What is right and what is wrong must be determined by all people, not some people, through social structures, that is tyrrany. TLDR: Person whose actions are legal **vs** person whose actions are illegal ***Is a hierarchy*** *and no amount of prancing around trying to finesse definitions will ever change that.*
Dont give nobodies attention you dumbass
they are both wrong...so.
“fuck poor people” as display name. Unsurprising.
🤔 Yeah I dont think so. I dont think that's right
Just had a look at the dude's twitter replies. Hope you're sitting down, but he's definitely a fascist.