Timeline for Was Kant anticipating Gödel's incompleteness in his antinomies?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 8 at 16:14 | answer | added | user73173 | timeline score: 0 | |
| May 8 at 15:28 | comment | added | user73173 | @PhilipKlöcking Sure, but the ground of Kant's discussion is the distinction between finitary and infinitary proofs, as introduced by Leibniz. Godel himself, when he began studying Leibniz's work, acknowledged that Leibniz anticipated some of his (and other people working on these issues, i.e. Hilbert etc.) ideas. All cosmological antinomies rely on this distinction. There is a link to incompleteness. Did Kant anticipate Godel? Not exactly, but he read Leibniz, who certainly did. | |
| Aug 7, 2020 at 11:21 | answer | added | meir buzaglo | timeline score: 0 | |
| Sep 8, 2017 at 12:50 | comment | added | user20253 | @Krishna Rao If you are an admirer of Gibran's poetry and Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa then you have left Russell and Wittgenstein far behind, but Godel is another matter. I do not know of an accessible explanation to his work and the reason may be that opinions vary considerably as to its meaning. if you find one please let me know. | |
| Sep 8, 2017 at 12:46 | comment | added | user20253 | @Philip Klocking I'd agree with your point, The situation parallels Zeno's paradoxes. The point of pointing out these paradoxes is not to suggest they are obstacles to knowledge but to show how these obstacles can be avoided. This is often missed but it seems unmissable. On the question, I also see a link to Godel but the issues are very tricky. Even mathematicians can't agree on exactly what Incompleteness implies for metaphysics. | |
| Oct 15, 2016 at 14:18 | comment | added | user2953 | Welcome to Philosophy.SE! If you have another question, please ask it by clicking the Ask Question button. | |
| Oct 15, 2016 at 11:54 | comment | added | Krishna Rao PUTCHA | Q: may i please request an authentic and accessible reference to Goedel's work and that of Bertrand Russell possibly by Russell himself ? is there an accessible reference to Wittgenstein as well, please ? i hesitate to share my untutored thoughts on these serious topics for fear that it might cost me my audience and perhaps my membership as well --- a sad development it would be ! i am an admirer of Kahlil Gibran's poetry and Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa's religious philosophy and i like to read Russell and Goedel and Wittgenstein from a humanistic point of view --- please help ! --- Krishna Rao | |
| Aug 14, 2016 at 4:26 | answer | added | Mozibur Ullah | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 18, 2016 at 3:15 | history | edited | Conifold | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body; edited title
|
| May 12, 2016 at 9:54 | history | edited | Conifold |
edited tags
|
|
| Jan 29, 2016 at 19:04 | vote | accept | Alexander S King | ||
| Jan 20, 2016 at 9:50 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhilosophy/status/689746704694927361 | ||
| Jan 20, 2016 at 7:07 | answer | added | Jo Wehler | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 20, 2016 at 0:26 | history | edited | Alexander S King | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body; edited title
|
| Jan 20, 2016 at 0:11 | comment | added | Alexander S King | @virmaior any other term I can think of "Anticipating","Predicting" pretty much conveys the same meaning. What I am trying to convey is that Kant was giving an intuitive version of an idea that Godel later expresses in a formal way. | |
| Jan 19, 2016 at 23:25 | answer | added | Conifold | timeline score: 9 | |
| Jan 19, 2016 at 22:32 | comment | added | virmaior | I'm not really up to speed on the "foreshadow" relation. Is there a different way to articulate that? | |
| Jan 19, 2016 at 22:26 | comment | added | Nelson Alexander | I suppose you could make that comparison, but I don't think there's much to it. Any "redundancy" would be relatively tiny for either work. | |
| Jan 19, 2016 at 21:54 | comment | added | Philip Klöcking♦ | The whole point of the antinomies is showing that they are only antinomies if you're not a transcendental idealist and can with the help of it shown to be not contradicting each other. I think there is a misunderstanding regarding the position. Kant does not actually endorse them as antinomous. | |
| Jan 19, 2016 at 21:02 | history | asked | Alexander S King | CC BY-SA 3.0 |