Math, Religion, and Art
Scott T Roberts
Math: Euclidean and Riemann.
Religion: Islam and Buddhism.
Art: Impressionist and Abstract paintings (ist, ism...whatever).
Definition--By *style* I mean Buddhism (for example).
Each style is incompatable with the other in one way or another. For example,
I think I would enjoy impressionism on Monday and abstract on Tuesday as
opposed to alternating the styles of what I see in one sitting (actually, I
think abstract is obscene).
Eventhough the styles are incompatable, they achieve the same purpose within
their group:
Math: Logical consistency
Religion: Social glue
Art: Enjoyment
One style is better than the other depending on the "environment" that the
"user" is in.
Anybody have any thoughts on this (like *why* the similarities?)?
Jonathan Rowe
In article <1991Jun10....@ducvax.auburn.edu> srob...@eng.auburn.edu
writes:
>I just wanted to point some similarities.
>
>Math: Euclidean and Riemann.
>
>Religion: Islam and Buddhism.
>
>Art: Impressionist and Abstract paintings (ist, ism...whatever).
You haven't pointed out any similarities. I would guess that
most similarities you could think of would be superficial and
irrelevent. These are very different kinds of human activity.
>Definition--By *style* I mean Buddhism (for example).
>Each style is incompatable with the other in one way or another. For example,
>I think I would enjoy impressionism on Monday and abstract on Tuesday as
>opposed to alternating the styles of what I see in one sitting (actually, I
>think abstract is obscene).
That's only your subjective view. I like both impressionism and
abstract art. Also, Euclidean and Riemannian geometry are not
incompatable - they both sit comfortably within a general framework
of Geometry. The two religions aren't so much incompatible as
completely different. I.e. Islam to a muslim is a different thing
to what buddhism is to a buddhist. They may fulfil some role
as social glue (but in the case of Buddhism this is far from
obvious), but this is not the prime role (or indeed a necessary
role) for either (or any religion).
>Eventhough the styles are incompatable, they achieve the same purpose within
>their group:
> Math: Logical consistency
> Religion: Social glue
> Art: Enjoyment
I would dispute all three. If the main purpose of geometry within Maths
was to achieve logical consitency, then any fool adding any new truth
would be a mathematician - the trick is to add only useful new truths
(defining _useful_ is a problem though).
I've already indicated that I don't think that social glue is
the purpose of religion (though it is sometimes a by-product).
I think religious ideas have deep philosophical and psychological
roots, in addition to social ones. e.g. thinking about _purpose_
in the universe, coming to terms with perceptions, how to explain
lack of self-control of the Unconscious, have we got free-will,
how can we be sure of anything...etc etc. Further, if God exists,
the Religion is not merely a human activity - it is also a
divine activity.
There are all sorts of reasons why an artist might produce art,
not necessarily enjoyment (the artists or the audience). They
might be social comments, or evidence of the artists' struggles
with their minds, or serving religious purposes (or even illustrating
maths - e.g. Mandelbrot set)
>One style is better than the other depending on the "environment" that the
>"user" is in.
No. The two forms of geometry are equally valid as mathematics. In
some sense Riemann was "better" because his work put Euclid's in a
broader context. (conversely, Euclid's is "better" because without
it, Riemann wouldn't have got started...)
One religion may be better than another simply because it is _true_
and the other isn't (you have to admit this as a possibility).
If they're both wrong then the question is, in what ways? You seem
to view religion as a useful ploy to keep the masses happy and
preserve social structure - this is not what religious ideas are
about.
The question of what makes one piece of art "better" than another
is the central question of aesthetics - it can even be disputed that
there are any possible criteria for objective judgement.
Jon Rowe.