Uncategorized

How to make calculus easy

Calculus is difficult because real numbers are wrongly believed essential to it. Reverting to the way calculus originated makes it easy. Axiomatic proofs (like Russell’s 378 page proof of 1+1=2) add zilch to the practical value of math in a grocer’s shop, but they make math excessively difficult. The purported Read more…

By ckr, ago

“Euclid” must fall: racism, the church, and the axiomatic method (collected resources)

(Keynote Tübingen/Pretoria 13 May 2021. Related articles now online.) Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAP1BcK8mLE Presentation: http://ckraju.net/papers/presentations/Euclid-must-fall.html Articles: Part 1: Racist prejudice and the false history of “Greek” achievements in math and science Abstract.To eliminate racist prejudices, it is necessary to identify the root cause(s) of racism. American slavery preceded racism, and was closely Read more…

By C. K. Raju, ago

Twitter war re Nilesh Oak

Several people have written to me regarding a twitter war being waged between Nilesh Oak and a CK Raju.
As I am not on twitter, I asked someone else to ascertain. The debate relates to the comments on a video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWH4nTlbpjk.
Clicking on the comments on that video by CK Raju leads to this Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLMba_JsUi9rei355dWrMvg.
This is NOT my Youtube channel which is in the name of Dr C. K. Raju: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzwN5fTQxA856Cu8qUnAmcA.
Below is my response to one such email that I received:
(more…)

By C. K. Raju, ago

Logic and Aristotle

The church state nexus led to an enormous amount of false history, for the priest ruled with the help of lies.
During the Crusades the church adopted reason (not much mention of it in the Bible).  The Crusades (after the first) were military failures, therefore, the church adopted reason, as an artifice to be able to convert Muslims, and grab their wealth.
The church actually learned about reason from Muslims, particularly Ibn Rushd (Averroes, whose books were used as texts in Western universities for centuries). Ibn Rushd speaks only of “the philosopher”, but the priests spread the lie that this “philosopher” was “Aristotle”, an early Greek hence “friend of the church”, like the non-existent Euclid. This lie was essential to portray “Aristotle” as theologically correct and enable the church to adopt reason.  (Islamic thinkers routinely conflated “Neoplatonic” or sufi philosophers like Plotinus, and Proclus with “Arasto”, and valued the “theology of Aristotle” (or “paganism”), contrary to church dogmas.)
At any rate, Christian priests spread the falsehood that logic began with Aristotle (the way they spread the falsehood that math began with Euclid). To highlight the confusion involved, I have separated the fabricated 12th c. “Aristotle of Toledo” from the historical “Aristotle of Stagira”, Alexander’s tutor and possible recipient of the books that Alexander looted from Persia and Egypt, and got translated into Greek.The story that the Arabic books at Toledo originated from early Greece is a church and racist lie for which there is no evidence.
For any knowledge to develop, the social conditions must be there, and the social conditions provide evidence to the contrary. Indeed, there was no tradition among early Greeks of any long debates, so no need for anyone to develop a syllogism. Aristotle, like Socrates, risked being condemned to death: the usual early Greek way of settling an argument. In contrast, in India there were fierce debates between Buddhist and Jains, or Buddhists and Naiyayikas etc. In India, people debated with each other to establish truth, and did not simply kill their opponents in the manner of early Greeks and the medieval church. Because of these social conditions, all Indian schools developed elaborate syllogisms to put their point across effectively.
Now, “Aristotle of Toledo”, i.e., Arabic literature in the 12th c., comes long after the spread of Indian knowledge to Arabs, in the 8th c. Hence, I have repeatedly pointed out possible Indian inputs to that knowledge in Arabic texts wildly attributed to early Greeks by dishonest church and racist historians (e.g. in astronomy and “trigonometry”). In 2008, in an essay on logic for an encyclopedia (see reference below), I argued that the Indian Nyaya syllogism could have been similarly mis-attributed to Aristotle (the Jain and Buddhist syllogisms were different).
Why did people believe the foolish stories told by church priests, without checking them? Because they were indoctrinated to trust only what the priest had approved. Likewise, the colonised mind never checks the facts, and only believes what is endorsed by the West: that is it should be mixed with appropriate falsehoods to preserve the falsehoods earlier told by the West.
Not able to stick to the silly story that logic originated with Aristotle, the West has now taken up the task of falsifying my critique by playing some more with history. The email reproduced below tells the story. I am reproducing it publicly since these fellows did not have the courtesy to respond to it so they may quite possibly have an underlying church or racist agenda to preserve false history.
———————- (more…)
By C. K. Raju, ago