The decline of the West, Volume 1 : $b Form and actualitySpengler, Oswald
Philosophy
The decline of the West, Volume 1 : $b Form and actuality
Spengler, Oswald
Civilization -- History
We can now understand what it is that divides one mathematic from
another, and in particular the Classical from the Western. The whole
world-feeling of the matured Classical world led it to see mathematics
only as the theory of relations of magnitude, dimension and form between
bodies. When, from out of this feeling, Pythagoras evolved and expressed
the decisive formula, number had come, for him, to be an _optical_
symbol—not a measure of form generally, an abstract relation, but a
frontier-post of the domain of the Become, or rather of that part of it
which the senses were able to split up and pass under review. By the
whole Classical world without exception numbers are conceived as units
of measure, as magnitude, lengths, or surfaces, and for it no other sort
of extension is imaginable. The whole Classical mathematic is at bottom
_Stereometry_ (solid geometry). To Euclid, who rounded off its system in
the third century, the triangle is of deep necessity the bounding
surface of a body, never a system of three intersecting straight lines
or a group of three points in three-dimensional space. He defines a line
as “length without breadth” (μῆκος ἀπλατές). In our mouths such a
definition would be pitiful—in the Classical mathematic it was
brilliant.
The Western number, too, is not, as Kant and even Helmholtz thought,
something proceeding out of Time as an _a priori_ form of conception,
but is something specifically spatial, in that it is an order (or
ordering) of like units. Actual time (as we shall see more and more
clearly in the sequel) has not the slightest relation with mathematical
things. Numbers belong exclusively to the domain of extension. But there
are precisely as many possibilities—and therefore necessities—of ordered
presentation of the extended as there are Cultures. Classical number is
a thought-process dealing not with spatial relations but with visibly
limitable and tangible units, and it follows naturally and necessarily
that the Classical knows only the “natural” (positive and whole)
numbers, which on the contrary play in our Western mathematics a quite
undistinguished part in the midst of complex, hypercomplex, non-
Archimedean and other number-systems.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account