1

I find this couplet really interesting:

Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things
Poetry is the art of giving different names to the same thing

The first one is made from Poincaré, the second one is a quick response of an unknown poet to that mot. Besides being a counterpoint of each other, do they represent anything in philosophy? In particular, is the first one talking about logocentricism (there exists a signified that you can grasp), and the second one is deconstructionism (there is no signified to expect to grasp it at all)?

Also asked on reddit: Is the couplet about mathematics and poetry about logocentricism and deconstructionism? : askphilosophy

Ooker
  • 725
  • 1
  • 5
  • 19
  • 1
    I read it as saying that mathematics is about reducing things to number and poetry is about recovering them as complex phenomena. Something like this. –  Apr 16 '18 at 10:32
  • Do you care to express your thoughts on the terms as you applied them? _logocentrism_, _deconstructionism_? Or _art_ for that matter. – xtian Apr 21 '18 at 22:41
  • @xtian do you mean defining them (deconstructionism, logicentricism)? I'd use standard definitions. I think the couplet has given a definitions for math and art. – Ooker Apr 22 '18 at 02:51
  • Ooker. Your post, at best, makes a claim these terms have relevance to the quote. I think it’s fair to ask you to further express your understanding of this claim. At worst you’re making a guess at relevancy, and you wish the community to discuss this simple juxtaposition. But, as you must know, SE is not a discussion forum. – xtian Apr 22 '18 at 12:06
  • @xtian I don't have much knowledge on philosophy, so my question will unavoidably be vague. I would love to fix that though. I have added a little more information, can you see it if it's better? – Ooker Apr 22 '18 at 13:20
  • 1
    Ooker. Your edit introduced yet a fourth term, _signified_. From my greater experience in art and semiotics than philosophy and theory of mathematics, terms like "deconstruction" and "signifier/signified" are segregated in philosophy and absent in mathematical theory. For this reason alone I believe it's unlikely you'll get any responses, because answers will be **subjective**. If it was me, I would focus on reading--bibliography and index mining. Unfortunately, I can't offer any single starting point in mathematics. For Semiotics, maybe Handbook of Semiotics by Winfried Noth – xtian Apr 22 '18 at 14:00
  • @xtian thanks for you input, I'll check it. In the mean time, can you elaborate more on the "segregated in philosophy" bit? – Ooker Apr 22 '18 at 14:24
  • Ooker. _segregated in philosophy_. By this I mean the language of semiotics, structuralism and deconstruction are not evenly distributed across the philosophical discipline--not in common usage. – xtian Apr 22 '18 at 14:54
  • @xtian no? I thought that they are major movements in philosophy? – Ooker Apr 24 '18 at 02:54

0 Answers0