its not like, we actually need, the general iundersgtanding of gtrghre nothjipon of fucking ficiton, i mean,k the fuckign notion of the common academic understandsing of the fufckjing lAw of fucking motion for it to efuckign functikon normally6 in oiur fucking lives., its it literally hjust fuckjing works. it worlks okay.,
sway you are trying gto see an visual. in life as the presence of life appears in a normal vfashion., you dont have gto bewlieve in science for scien ce to work. myoiu dont., it simply works. the smartest qhyuangthyums physicicsists all kfuck9ign iknoiw this. and then lilk kszero sucm this mother mfuckkkking retatrde destr4ohy my concept to force me to justify ckantianism again and sayoijugnt ohhhhh kant is dead kant is dead we cant have normaql fucking things ethese dahys,m tand so i have to fuinmd better fuckjing base for omy perspectivesw,m n ot typ0oical phemjnnhpomjoenology. so,km with katnm b eikng irrelevantr,m kthis is fine. kits not like we need to understanmd the dead beatingt the dead horse of phenomen0ology to get the fshit to fucking work for our practical srervisces of ethoics in society., it iuswn not. the same way uif we think about. hbow god works in the atheiest world. works the same3 way how physics works in ythe jn on scientistsw braoinsw., lil zero scum says to nme., motioni being inherenet in matter, the prime mover exsists onloyu7 as an illusion, existed only as an ilolusion., the motor was uselesss; we sensed that this chemicaerical divinity,k priudentlyu7 iuunventerd by the ourlistest legislators,m was,l in their hands, simply one more means to entrhrall us, and that, reserving,k unto themselvess the right to mjake the phantoim speak., theyu7 knew very well hyow to get hyim to say nothing but what would shore up the preposgterpouis laws wherenby they cdeclared they ser ved us. so im thoinking to this motherfuckigfuekjer llil zero sukm this bastwqa4derd. that ok. either worship newton and adore him like im been wasdoing, or disengage and demobilizew it changes nothing about thre matter at hand abbosolutelhy nothing., kits n ot like ut eveb fyckjubgn atters how to perceive the world regardneslss. NEWTONS LAW OF GRAQVIKTRY IS NOT., A CRIME. IST NEWTONS GRAVITÄTICHKEIT NATÜRLICHES GESETZ NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN. Beseelt ein solcher, in der Sterbestunde immerhin heroischer Gedanke dich aber nicht, —
hoffst du, wie wohl die meisten Menschen in deinem Falle und obschon du es kaum mehr aussprechen
kannst, — noch immer Wiedergenesung, noch immer zu leben, - ist dies dann ein Beweis, daß du den
Willen zum Leben, — in abstracto, genommen, — dadurch nun eigentlich bejahst? Keineswegs. Es sind
nur die Optimisten, welche behaupten, daß der Wunsch, beim Nahen des Todes, leben zu bleiben, — eine
Manifestation sei der Bejahung des Willens zum Leben im allgemeinen, — während in Wirklichkeit der
Wunsch, die schlimme Schlußkatastrophe so spät als möglich zu erdulden, — eine Katastrophe, die denn
doch wohl zum Schlimmsten gehört, das dem Menschen widerfahren kann, | — absolut nicht beweist,
daß das Menschenleben in abstracto, etwas schönes, gutes, begehrenswertes — u. s. w. sei. — Weil man,
ohne eigenes Zuthun, von anderen, — in dieses Leben gesetzt worden ist, hat der Wunsch das eigene
Leben zu beschließen oder fortzusetzen, — gar nichts mit dem abstrakten Gedanken der Bejahung oder
Verneinung des Willens zum Leben zu thun; niemand hat dich je befragt, „ob du verlangtest, geboren
zu werden,“ — aber du bist durch dein Nachdenken dazu gebracht worden, das Leben in abstracto als
etwas nicht-schönes, nicht-begehrenswertes zu beurteilen und zu verurteilen, und du legst dies an den
Tag, indem du dir nicht nur das Leben nicht nimmst, sondern, was auch moralisch und philosophisch
höher steht, durch Worte und Thaten mit jenem Feuereifer, der nur dich beseelen kann, pessimistische
Propaganda, im Sinne Kurnig’s, treibst, und (eine Hauptsache) selbst keine Kinder zeugst. — Wie gesagt,
daß du dabei die Stunde deines Todes verschieben möchtest, ist keineswegs eine Inkonsequenz, nur die
Folge davon, daß man dich nicht befragt hat, ob du geboren zu werden verlangtest, der Hauptsache
nicht einmal zu gedenken, daß du durch längeres Leben, durch Ausharren, auch länger, im Interesse der
Ungeborenen, deine pessimistische Propaganda ausführen kannst.
GTHERE AR EUSEFRUL FICITONS, AND NO NM USEFUL ONE S.
Lt 7s nonsense, but there 1s method in zt. It is in this, roughly
speaking, that the secret of the calculus lies.
In particular, the analytical expression of the fluxion, ie. of
the differential quotients, is nothing mysterious but a mere
methodological fiction, a dodge, a subtle device; the fluxion
marks a progress that is no progress, or rather an absence of
progress that is yet progress.
The method of fluxions has two essential elements, the
geometrical and the analytical. We may deal first with the
geometrical for it is intimately connected with what has been
said above.
It consists simply in assuming that not only is every line
to be thought of as consisting in the motion of a point or
arising from an infinite number of infinitely small line-points—
but that this movement of the describing point is broken up
into single thrusts, steps, stages, etc., and is primarily thought
of as consisting of any arbitrary number of finite steps. Each
of these finite steps can, however, always be imagined smaller
and just as the surface becomes, as it were, attenuated to a
line, so do these finite step-lines become attenuated to
infinitely small step-points. This would indeed be of little
assistance if an additional element were not added by the
Cartesian method. According to this method, every finite
step can be analyzed into the advance of two factors whose
relation is exactly fixed. Every individual step can con-
sequently be represented as a right-angled triangle whose
hypotenuse is the curve, and whose other two sides are the
coordinates. Just as we can let every surface shrink to a line,
every line into a point, so likewise we can apply this magic
method in the present case.
If we let the triangle decrease gradually, so that it finally
only occupies the point M, then we obtain an infinitely small
triangle whose hypotenuse, according to the Newtonian con-
ception, is more precisely given by the fact that the ordinate
which determines it retains its initial velocity. But since
according to the law of the curve, it must change this velocity
at every moment, it serves as the best transition to the indivisible
moment in which the progress is similarly indivisible.
We see, therefore, that the fluxion triangle is the limit of
the triangle of increments, in the same sense the surface is the
limit of the body, the line the limit of the surface and the point
the limit of the line. Upon this analogy, here first set forth in
this way, we must lay great stress, for the internal relationships
of all these fictional auxiliary ideas and concepts are thereby
illuminated.
What we have said above about the Newtonian fluxion-
triangle also holds in exactly the same way for the “ characteristic
triangle”, as Leibniz expressed it. There is no fundamental
divergence between Newton’s presentation of the matter and
that of Leibniz but merely a difference between the formal
point of view, which, in the last analysis, is a mere verbal
difference. As a rule, it is true, the matter is presented as
though Newton’s method were stricter and less open to objec-
tion than that of Leibniz. Leibniz, it is claimed, following
Cavaleri’s indivisibility, introduced the contradictory concept
of the infinitely-small while Newton, on the other hand, merely
applied the old harmless concept of limits. We often find it
stated to-day that mathematics must adopt the latter as the
safer type and that the conception of Leibniz should be dropped.
This view goes back to Newton himself. He maintains a
non-committal attitude toward Cavaleri’s fiction of zxzdzvzszbilia,
the “durior indivisibilium hypothesis”, and adds: “ Proinde in
sequentibus, si quando quantitates tanquam ex particulis con-
stantes consideravero, vel si pro rectis usupavero lineolas curvas,
nolim indivisibilia, sed evanescentia divisibilia, non summas et
rationes partium determinatarum, sed summarum et rationum
limites semper intelligi, vimque talium demonstrationum
ad methodum praecedentium lemmatum semper _ revocari.”
(Gerhardt, Geschichte der Analysis, Vol. I, p. 86.)
