#perelman

[academic-vampire]

ℌ𝔬𝔴 ℑ 𝔴𝔞𝔫𝔱 𝔱𝔬 𝔟𝔢 🏛️

[schizografia]

Un barbone a passeggio?

Errore!... è probabilmente il più grande matematico vivente al mondo.

Il russo Grigorij “Grisha” Jakovlevič Perelman è stato l’unico uomo che sia riuscito a risolvere uno dei sette "Problemi del Millennio", dimostrando la Congettura di Poincaré e ha rifiutato il premio da un milione di dollari che gli era stato assegnato dal Clay Mathematics Institute per questa scoperta.

La Congettura di Poincaré, è un complesso problema di topologia e quando Grisha trovò la soluzione disse: "Per me è del tutto irrilevante, in quanto se la soluzione è quella giusta, non c'è bisogno di alcun altro riconoscimento”.

Vive in un mini-alloggio all’interno di un palazzone popolare, uno di quelli costruiti da qualche zar del socialismo reale. Per lui i soldi non contano nulla: "Non voglio essere uno scienziato da vetrina, ma uno che studia la scienza per il bene degli altri”.

Grisha gira con capelli e barba incolti e scarpe da ginnastica sformate, le immagini più recenti di lui lo ritraggono con un look trascurato: un blogger l’ha scovato in metropolitana e l’ha immortalato con il cellulare mettendo poi le sue foto su internet.

Dicono che nella sua città, che fu la capitale degli zar, sia di moda indossare una t-shirt con il suo volto e la scritta: "In questo mondo… non tutto si può comprare".

[RG]

[lucy-in-the-sky22]

[dion-seid]

Oponiendo la voluntad al entendimiento, el espíritu de finura al espíritu geométrico, el corazón a la razón y el arte de persuadir al de convencer, Pascal ya había tratado de obviar las insuficiencias del método geométrico, lo cual se deduce de la consideración de que el hombre caído ya no es únicamente un ente de razón.

Perelman & Olbrechts

[what3v3r-spac3]

The system, however, was not overturned, but instead grew stronger. Workers were forced to surrender more and more of their traditional periods of leisure (see Hill 1967; Reid 1976, 76–101). The working day was lengthened (Hammond and Hammond 1919, 5–7). The working class, in the person of Spence, cried out: ‘‘Instead of working only six days a week we are obliged to work at the rate of eight or nine and yet can hardly subsist . . . and still the cry is work—work—ye are idle. . . . We, God help us, have fallen under the hardest set of masters that have ever existed’’ (cited in Kemp-Ashraf 1966, 277; see also Tawney 1926, esp. 223). This statement was eloquent enough to earn its author a sentence of three years’ imprisonment after its publication in 1803—a result typical of the fate of those who challenged the capitalist order. Whenever the working class and its friends effectively protested against capitalism, the silent compulsion of capital (Marx 1977, 899) gave way to compulsory silence.

The Invention of Capitalism, Michael Perelman

[academic-vampire]

(Below is an essay I wrote about an essay I read concerning humans and technology. I titled it, “The De-Evolution of Man.” I think the topic is quite interesting to ponder. Keep in mind, the essay I am referring to (“Insert Flap ‘A’ and Throw Away” by S. J. Perelman) was written in the 1940s—it’s fascinating to see how society has changed, but even more compelling to see how society has stayed the same. What are your thoughts on the matter?)

The De-Evolution of Man

(Jack C, 2024)

S. J. Perelman’s essay, “Insert Flap ‘A’ and Throw Away,” explores humanity’s seemingly de-evolutioned self through satire and humor. Perelman’s essay follows a narrator who has terrible competency regarding “advanced”—assembly required—products. The author appears to relay his worst experiences dealing with infuriating technology, which society would consider advanced. Perelman raises the question of which person is truly evolving backward: those who can adapt to technology or those who cannot.

Perelman cleverly weaves satire throughout his essay while addressing the issue of modern technology. Humor allows Perelman to critique society and its supposed “advancements” when it comes to technology without his essay coming off as one long complaint. Satire and humor are practical tools for style and allow the writer to convey their message discreetly and entertainingly.

While the argument may not be directly stated, there seems to be an underlying theme of man versus modern technological “advancements.” More specifically, Perelman looks at how man appears to “decline in evolution” when presented with what society would deem “modern advancements.” The narrator becomes useless when confronted with these “buyer assembly required” products—stapling his thumb and slicing his finger open. It is common nowadays to buy furniture and have it shipped in parts for the buyer to assemble. Society claims that this symbolizes progress, but it may only be considered progress due to the lessening cost of the product, not the effectiveness of it. A pre-made dresser costs significantly more than one the buyer needs to assemble themselves. In that, the buyer is put to the test, and like Perelman’s narrator, sometimes the buyer fails technology.

Perelman’s narrator does not advance as a human while he tries to build the two products; instead, he de-evolves. This attempt to overpower the technology can be seen when the narrator determines to, “…show them who was master…”, referring to his family and maybe even society (189). By attempting to master this “advanced” technology, the narrator strives to evolve. But after a battle with the products, the narrator fails the test of evolution in terms of ability and states, “‘There,’ I said with a gasp, ‘that’s close enough…’” (189). The narrator cannot rise to the challenge of progress and, therefore, declines into a creature of helplessness and incompetence.

Whether or not modern technology can be considered advanced or impractical is up for debate. Perhaps if one had the skill to handle these advancements, they would not have as much trouble as the narrator had. That begs the question, which person embodies de-evolution—the person who can adapt to modern ways or the person who cannot? Perelman seems to convey that technology is the thing that is moving backward in terms of progress, not humans. The attempt to assemble the impractical product renders the narrator animalistic, but progress would claim that the obsoleteness of man is technology’s core purpose.

Works Cited

Atwan, Robert, and Joyce Carol Oates. The Best

American Essays of the Century. Houghton

Mifflin Co., 2000.

[dion-seid]

La naturaleza misma de la deliberación y de la argumentación se opone a la necesidad y a la evidencia, pues no se delibera en los casos en los que la solución es necesaria ni se argumenta contra la evidencia.

Perelman & Olbrechts, Teoría de la Argumentación

Y esto es para pensarlo en doble sentido.

[what3v3r-spac3]

"It is not enough that the conditions of labour are concentrated at one pole of society in the shape of capital, while at the other pole are grouped masses of men who have nothing to sell but their labour-power. Nor is it enough that they are compelled to sell themselves voluntarily. The advance of capitalist production develops a working class which by education, tradition and habit looks upon the requirements of that mode of production as self-evident natural laws. The organization of the capitalist process of production, once it is fully developed, breaks down all resistance. The constant generation of a relative surplus population keeps the law of the supply and demand of labour, and therefore wages, within narrow limits which correspond to capital’s valorization requirements. The silent compulsion of economic relations sets the seal on the domination of the capitalist over the worker. Direct extra-economic force is still of course used, but only in exceptional cases. In the ordinary run of things, the worker can be left to the ‘‘natural laws of production,’’ i.e., it is possible to rely on his dependence on capital, which springs from the conditions of production themselves, and is guaranteed in perpetuity by them. It is otherwise during the historical genesis of capitalist production. The rising bourgeoisie needs the power of the state, and uses it to ‘‘regulate’’ wages, i.e., to force them into the limits suitable to make a profit, to lengthen the working day, and to keep the worker himself at his normal level of dependence. This is an essential aspect of so-called primitive accumulation. [...] the pretensions of capital in its embryonic state, in its state of becoming, when it cannot yet use the sheer force of economic relations to secure its right to absorb a sufficient quantity of surplus labour, but must be aided by the power of the state. . . . Centuries are required before the ‘‘free’’ worker, owing to the greater development of the capitalist mode of production, makes a voluntary agreement, i.e. is compelled by social conditions to sell the whole of his active life." Aaron

Marx, as quoted by Perelman