How Euclid Thinks
It would be nice that one man with which his works annoyed kids everyday in school can also sets inspiration for us to have a general code in life.
And It would be a little bit strange that his so called "annoying" work can be OBVIOUSLY the very source of this inspiration. The work of "PLANE GEOMETRY".
I will here explain, with some imagination and pretensions of mine, the way Euclid can help us in dealing with any scientific, logical-based or mathematical field.
.........
Euclid is a linguistic guy, he loved the way of making arguments like his greek fellows. But although they land argumentation for just seeking the truth of anything, he and some of his fellows like Tales made their steps for transforming a beauty center of the code of life (shapes) into the argumentation greek environment.
with the understanding of what abstraction can make they could finally see an obvious result .. points, lines and shapes.
.....
We can't know about the point unless we see it first. This was true for Euclid, he actually drew points himself, he then drew lines, and by using his visual imagination he could see various shapes. But the greek environment which took argumentation as its standard (for philosophy, ascetics, ethics, etc) forced and aided him to think like this, why not we can "argument" about shapes ?!
....
He was true, Greeks was true, argumentation is an essential land for truth seeking, also its a really social gift, but with argumentation we have to make small distinction between it and any other aspect of life so that we can understand how can we link them together, Euclid did that before (although it was linking simple mental conception that we all can see using just a pen and a paper).
We can't argument about anything we didn't see unless we made some simulations with real world, we have to see (really or conceptually -like Euclid-) the source of what we argument about, Euclid had a source, his visual speculations which can be drawn with pens and paper. we, then, have to see that these real world happenings can be reduced to abstract representations, hence, we can link it with our argumentation atmosphere.
....
Argumentation leads to "making conditions", the source of headache, we are simply applying this simple equation
(( A1 * B1 = A2 * B2 = 0 * ∞ )) where 0<A2<A1 and ∞>B2>B1
Assume that number of conditions are the series of B's, and the size of sliced parts are the series of A's
The smaller the sizes of slices and parts The larger the number of conditions.
In other words, with the method of argumentation we end up with numerous conditions which could seek to infinity (or to cause you a headache).
Abstraction can help us to reduce them as possible as we could, but we have to understand that to gain a good understanding of a certain topic we have to gain a good understanding for every condition of this topic. And this good understanding can generally come from dealing with the source and see how it interacts with its equivalent elements of argumentation.
....
*The Euclidean Approach*
1- See the source in general, have a look from a far place. (For example, chemistry is another source that is proved to be successfully transformed from just its factual events into an argumentation atmosphere. this of course allows us to "speak chemistry")
2- Put names for every distinguishable simplest elements, movements and events, If you have a big number of elements put a naming system -or systems if you need- for them .. and don't worry, your human ordinary language can help you in the next step.
3-State the first conditions you realized using what you reached for in stages 1 &2, check their validity, Put in your mind that conditions are the elements of argumentation.
4-Make a standard system (linguistically-based) for stating conditions related to the source.
Congratulations, you've transformed your insights about the source to conditions that could be dealt within an argumentation atmosphere.
....
*The Decryption of the Euclidean approach*
1-See conditions as clear as possible linguistically (it could be just fine if you just seen the linguistic conditions only in the first), language itself contains conditions within its core system -the if statements for instance-. (Know that language is a way of putting meanings using structural elements, know that names -which stands for certain meanings- are also just "conditions" -and you can experience how numerous are they, like we've said here before-).
2-Search for and Think in fetching, relating and re-relating between these conditions and their source, putting in consideration your former understanding of language itself. (Language is the basis for argumentation)
3-Think like Euclid himself and simulate.
....
The Euclidean approach and its counterpart of decryption love people who love to speak and write so much, or to state things clearly, or both of them. It's simply a way for transforming everything to comprehensive statements merged with the advantage of the standardization taste.
But I think we almost time need the decryption approach, we have already infinitely number of conditions, and we need to understand them in order to use them properly and make them tools for us .. This decryption approach can allow us to understand what Euclid said and seen. and from understanding things like Euclid (or any other group of fellows -scientists, mathematicians, engineers, etc-), merging them with our original mentalities, we can make use of what the argumentation atmosphere provides to us. It's like you have a system (a car for instance) which allows you to make and even to invent various results and outcomes (like the car various actions of turning right and left, for breaking and stopping, for racing, etc.)
...
Now we can say this
((Euclid has the same characteristics of scientists and the like, the logically profound ones who use the method of argumentation))
Also, now we can say ((Welcome Euclid)).
...
Enjoy
And It would be a little bit strange that his so called "annoying" work can be OBVIOUSLY the very source of this inspiration. The work of "PLANE GEOMETRY".
I will here explain, with some imagination and pretensions of mine, the way Euclid can help us in dealing with any scientific, logical-based or mathematical field.
.........
Euclid is a linguistic guy, he loved the way of making arguments like his greek fellows. But although they land argumentation for just seeking the truth of anything, he and some of his fellows like Tales made their steps for transforming a beauty center of the code of life (shapes) into the argumentation greek environment.
with the understanding of what abstraction can make they could finally see an obvious result .. points, lines and shapes.
.....
We can't know about the point unless we see it first. This was true for Euclid, he actually drew points himself, he then drew lines, and by using his visual imagination he could see various shapes. But the greek environment which took argumentation as its standard (for philosophy, ascetics, ethics, etc) forced and aided him to think like this, why not we can "argument" about shapes ?!
....
He was true, Greeks was true, argumentation is an essential land for truth seeking, also its a really social gift, but with argumentation we have to make small distinction between it and any other aspect of life so that we can understand how can we link them together, Euclid did that before (although it was linking simple mental conception that we all can see using just a pen and a paper).
We can't argument about anything we didn't see unless we made some simulations with real world, we have to see (really or conceptually -like Euclid-) the source of what we argument about, Euclid had a source, his visual speculations which can be drawn with pens and paper. we, then, have to see that these real world happenings can be reduced to abstract representations, hence, we can link it with our argumentation atmosphere.
....
Argumentation leads to "making conditions", the source of headache, we are simply applying this simple equation
(( A1 * B1 = A2 * B2 = 0 * ∞ )) where 0<A2<A1 and ∞>B2>B1
Assume that number of conditions are the series of B's, and the size of sliced parts are the series of A's
The smaller the sizes of slices and parts The larger the number of conditions.
In other words, with the method of argumentation we end up with numerous conditions which could seek to infinity (or to cause you a headache).
Abstraction can help us to reduce them as possible as we could, but we have to understand that to gain a good understanding of a certain topic we have to gain a good understanding for every condition of this topic. And this good understanding can generally come from dealing with the source and see how it interacts with its equivalent elements of argumentation.
....
*The Euclidean Approach*
1- See the source in general, have a look from a far place. (For example, chemistry is another source that is proved to be successfully transformed from just its factual events into an argumentation atmosphere. this of course allows us to "speak chemistry")
2- Put names for every distinguishable simplest elements, movements and events, If you have a big number of elements put a naming system -or systems if you need- for them .. and don't worry, your human ordinary language can help you in the next step.
3-State the first conditions you realized using what you reached for in stages 1 &2, check their validity, Put in your mind that conditions are the elements of argumentation.
4-Make a standard system (linguistically-based) for stating conditions related to the source.
Congratulations, you've transformed your insights about the source to conditions that could be dealt within an argumentation atmosphere.
....
*The Decryption of the Euclidean approach*
1-See conditions as clear as possible linguistically (it could be just fine if you just seen the linguistic conditions only in the first), language itself contains conditions within its core system -the if statements for instance-. (Know that language is a way of putting meanings using structural elements, know that names -which stands for certain meanings- are also just "conditions" -and you can experience how numerous are they, like we've said here before-).
2-Search for and Think in fetching, relating and re-relating between these conditions and their source, putting in consideration your former understanding of language itself. (Language is the basis for argumentation)
3-Think like Euclid himself and simulate.
....
The Euclidean approach and its counterpart of decryption love people who love to speak and write so much, or to state things clearly, or both of them. It's simply a way for transforming everything to comprehensive statements merged with the advantage of the standardization taste.
But I think we almost time need the decryption approach, we have already infinitely number of conditions, and we need to understand them in order to use them properly and make them tools for us .. This decryption approach can allow us to understand what Euclid said and seen. and from understanding things like Euclid (or any other group of fellows -scientists, mathematicians, engineers, etc-), merging them with our original mentalities, we can make use of what the argumentation atmosphere provides to us. It's like you have a system (a car for instance) which allows you to make and even to invent various results and outcomes (like the car various actions of turning right and left, for breaking and stopping, for racing, etc.)
...
Now we can say this
((Euclid has the same characteristics of scientists and the like, the logically profound ones who use the method of argumentation))
Also, now we can say ((Welcome Euclid)).
...
Enjoy
Comments
Post a Comment