|Simplicity philosophy: is not definable. E.g. One could try to define the simplicity of an object by the fact that the subject requires the shortest description. This is bound to fail, because the symbols used in the description in turn may refer to complex entities. See also unity, complexity, descriptions._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. |
|AU Cass 8
Simplicity / Luhmann: Middle Ages assumed that only complex aggregates can fall apart - (E.g. the soul is simple) - nowadays: we do not have the concept of simplicity - complexity is a concept without a counter term - this is unusual - concept without a counter term: E.g. sense - even the negation must have a meaning - e.g. world_____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. The note [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition.
Introduction to Systems Theory, Lectures Universität Bielefeld 1991/1992
Einführung in die Systemtheorie Heidelberg 1992
Die Kunst der Gesellschaft Frankfurt 1997