As a symbolic game, mathematics itself is violent. There is no essential difference between believing in mathematics and believing in a god in this respect. The teacher of the male protagonist firmly believes in'proving' this'god', and the male protagonist has his own religious beliefs, and the two gods did not personally end the fight, but the conflict between the male protagonist and the male protagonist cannot be avoided. What is shown in the movie is the god of "proof", a complete crush on religious gods. This kind of crushing is materialized. It is not about mathematical truths, but about whether you can reach mathematical truths through the ritual of "proving gods". The set of religious gods will not work. You must be careful to cut off your religious gods. The rituals, even the food, skin color, etc., after the excision, use the rituals that fully "prove" the teaching to re-do everything. Mathematical problems are representations, and the logic behind them is the collision of Eastern and Western thinking.
The miracle of mathematics is manifested through "proof", while the miracle of the male protagonist's religious god is manifested through the carrier of dream, or through the process of listening to the mandate of heaven and then writing down. The difference between these two miracles is that the process of "proving" can be reproduced at no cost, while the destiny is different, which is often a one-time mysterious experience. In contrast, the means of "proving" God is more sophisticated. Every different individual can experience miracles at different times and places. For missions, the cost is almost nothing, but the process of "proving" Compared with receiving the destiny of heaven, there is no superiority or inferiority in understanding the truth of mathematics. The movie only shows the errors in the mathematics research of the male protagonist, but does not show the process of "proof". There is also a problem-the problem is Once a mistake is made, a new one must replace the old one to explain its legitimacy. This is a process of replacing oneself or proving oneself. This process does not result in a new one that is more legal than the old one. , There is always the next one waiting for you, you can’t know if you’re just a smarter mistake, a mistake recurring 10,000 times, or a mistake — only a single aspect is shown in the movie, and its value orientation is The problem is, I have a good impression of British films, but this one really makes me unable to love it.
Putting aside the view of mathematical logic, the dominance of symbols over people allows two people in the movie to appreciate each other as teachers and friends, but they can only end with the death of one of the symbols (the male protagonist also died in the real world). People have to reflect, are we studying, living, working, or killing those heretics that are illegal to us? Obviously there is a way for two people to sit down and exchange mathematics and beliefs in a way that a living person faces another living person, but we still chose to use our own symbolic rules to kill another symbol system. Are people or symbols doing evil here? In other words, can people really not survive without symbols? The symbol is sadistic. We are using it to enjoy the sense of superiority and the sense of hurting others. Isn’t it a kind of murder? In the age of enlightenment, Kant answered the question "what is enlightenment" in this way: "Enlightenment is the childish state of being free from blame. The childish state is the inability to use one's reason without the guidance of others. If the reason is not lack of reason, The reason lies in the lack of determination and courage, and the inability to use reason without the guidance of others. Then, this childish state is self-inflicted. Have the courage to use your own reason! This is the slogan of enlightenment." (Li Qiuling, editor-in-chief "Kant "Complete Works of Works" Volume 8) The Enlightenment has passed, and we do not lack reason, what we lack is the determination and courage to use reason.
View more about The Man Who Knew Infinity reviews
