are philosophers supposed to be formally trained in Mathematics to "be good" at Logic? why don't more mathematicians, physicists, and engineers pick up philosophy?
are philosophers supposed to be formally trained in Mathematics to "be good" at Logic?
There are mathematicians and then there are continental philosophers, you might be thinking of analytic "philosophers" which is like the guy between the (real) mathematician and the continental (real) philosopher who is sucking the mathematician's wiener and getting fricked in the ass by the continental philosopher's wiener at the same time
bump
you have gay thoughts
Continental philosophy also makes use of mathematics and especially logic. It’s simply not true that it’s not quantitative at all. It’s rather than non-quantitative things like literary theory get smuggled into Continental philosophy even though they’re really not Continental philosophy.
They have no need for philosophy. The mathematician has everything he needs in his math theories, the physicist has everything he needs in his physics theories, and the engineer has everything he needs in his engineering theories.
Engineers don't have theories. We do actual useful work. Philosophers are intellectual masturbators who want to get paid for uselessly flapping their lips.
Engineers regularly work with theories from physics
Not every tool in the shed is proven yet, but some seem to work alright so we use them
cute 🙂
Your work is only "useful" because it is able to be harnessed for economic ends. In order to place craftmanship over philosophy you have to presuppose that "that which is valuable" is equivalent to "that which puts food in my belly". Philosophy is about the disinterested pursuit of truth. It's not for everyone, that's ok.
>Philosophy is about the disinterested pursuit of truth
Indubitably. I wish our parents were capable of appreciating our impassive reasoning.
>economic ends
My copious work in the open-source world belies your smug opinion.
For what end is technology produced? What is “useful”? Are you sure our society is superior to the Amish? Are you sure technology is in itself a great and useful thing? What makes it useful? Is it the ability to get instant access to films on Netflix? Just entertainment? Is it something deeper, ie something related to refining man’s mind by putting him in contact with information and different viewpoints? If so, what is this refinement of the mind to look like? Is it just a cookie clicker type game where we educate more people to become engineers so they can make more engineers and so on?
Why isn’t it “useful” to pose and attempt to answer philosophical questions? Because there’s no money attached to it?
philosophy these days is about justifying atrocious behavior for the benefit of the establishment
can't into abstraction
I’d say strength of materials and manufacturing science are engineering theories
no, they're facts. you don't want your bridge designers using mere theories.
"Theory" in science means a body of knowledge, not a conjecture. Strength of materials is a theory in the same sense as, for example, the theory of evolution or the theory of relativity are. The phrase "mere theories" is absurd because a theory is the highest and most confirmed state of knowledge, internally consistent, widely accepted, and consilient with facts.
We're not talking science, we're talking engineering. Stop LARPing as someone who knows what they're talking about; you're not fooling anyone.
The anon I'm responding to contrasts supposed facts in engineering to the "mere theories" of science, even aside from strength of materials being a subfield of physics. Your reading comprehension is so shockingly low, it's no wonder you fooled yourself into believing that you should be alive.
>ad hominem attack
I accept your concession.
An ad hominem is an attempt to refute an argument by insulting. I'm just insulting you because you annoyed me with your stupidity, shitbird. Since you don't even know what an "ad hominem" is, I retract my advice that you work on your reading comprehension — start with a dictionary first.
On top of your other myriad mental limitations, you also lack self-awareness. And yet, still, you're not interesting.
>engineering theories.
Analytic philosophers yes
Engineering is opposed to philosophy. A lot of great modern Mathematicians and Physicists did Philosophy such as Godel and Einstein.
People saying “analytic” philosophers only. But that’s stupid. All the way back to Plato it was recognised that mathematical training is necessary for a good philosopher. Mathematics and philosophy are very similar in that they are non-empirical sciences, although obviously philoskphy is the higher discipline dealing with the most fundamental subjects. There are very important philosophers such as Leibniz who were also mathematicians. The problem is we have all these fricking mathlet charlatans like Nietzsche who is considered a “philosopher” despite publishing inane rants with no argumentation.
No, you train in logic to get good at math. Math is just philosophy limited to our directly observable, quantifiable phenomenon. The republic has a prosaic treatment of standard math proof and contradiction
Sean M Carroll intersects mathematics, physics and philosophy. He shoehorns Socratic dialogue into his pop physics publications. They're quite good books, easy to read without being condescending.
>why don't more mathematicians, physicists, and engineers pick up philosophy?
Because our modern education system doesn't encourage them to. They don't need to grasp the whole. They only need to excel in their specialization of choice.
Philosophy is easy, and everyone gets into it on some level. We are midwit nerds jerking each other off on this board.
I got a master's degree in chemical engineering. So math is something I am quite proficient at. However the math you'll be able to apply for philosophy is literally brainlet level.. So you don't need a degree in math or engineering, we know more math than is useful. I really enjoy reading and thinking about philosophy but discussing or writing about it seems narcissistic somehow. Also where will we find the time? You do realize these areas of study you are referring to are more or less full time endeavors even after you get through academia. And insincerity is the seemingly the one the thing that pays in terms of philosophy these days.
American universities are fairly dead and, at the undergrad level, strongly discourage creative or improvised learning/discovery.
The kids go to college to become engineers or dime-a-dozen office workers, and the smart ones just keep going and going in their field, seeking professional success, oblivious to other fields.
The idea of general education died. Now it is technical specialization, a well know problem plaguing academia.
We entered a second dark age beginning with the Television.
this wouldn't have became a problem if it weren't for A. offshoring industry, ending bretton-woods, and mass immigration B. griggs vs duke power which led to the democratization of universities.
University has always been that way. This idea that people went to university at any point not to become professors and barristers but to participate in some free inquiry and discourse just doesn’t jive with reality. General education has died, but it’s not because people go to university looking to get a job with it.
Also, the people that just keep going in their field are some of the dumbest people in the whole university. Everybody knows this. You don’t need to be smart to get a PhD. In fact, if you choose to pursue a PhD there’s a high chance that fricking stupid. Otherwise, you probably wouldn’t do that. The smartest people you’ll meet at university these days often end up dropping out and having shitty jobs.
btw formal logic on the university level is very grim and I felt like it just serves to filter people out of stem
its literally baby tier lol you're doing at most like natural deduction proofs in first order logic with identity and no functors.
?? no, that's high school tier
What a good intro to communism book?
Actually physicists have a pretty strong track record of philosophizing on the side. "What is Life?" Schrodinger, "The Grand Design" Hawking, "Emperor's New Mind" Penrose, even "Existential Physics" by Hossenfelder are all great. Though the latter is a bit pop-sci for my tastes. Physicists are better philosophers than philosophers are, plus they actually contribute to society.
>plus they actually contribute to society.
All of science rests on the foundations laid by ancient philosophers. The way you think, speak, and the unconscious assumptions you rely on to make sense of the world were shaped by brooding old men from centuries ago.
>Physicists are better philosophers than philosophers are
Absurd STEM cope. You people are insufferable honesty. Physics has literally made any wisdom known at all, ever. It has totally failed to verify even its own claims.
>totally failed to validate even its own claims
Predicts the existence of the Higgs, the cosmological constant, perihelion of Mercury, Microwave background, etc. "totally failed" my ass. Pointing at gaps in our current knowledge and then claiming that somehow debunks all of physics is the greatest non-stem cope. What has philosophical "wisdom" accomplished? Not some vague "betterment of society" crap, something specific and concrete.
>Physics has literally made any wisdom known at all
ESL
Why are philosophisers so darn ignorant of geometry
>why don't more mathematicians, physicists, and engineers pick up philosophy?
because at some point "philosophy" ceased to be about understanding the natural world and our place in it and instead become about jerking off about irrelevant moralgayging, metaphysics and politics. In short, mathematicians and physicists ARE the true inheritors of philosophy. If you want to study philosophy then you study Heisenberg, Einstein ect, not Kant and Nietzsche.
>If you want to study philosophy then you study Heisenberg, Einstein ect
That's not the way you study mathematics or physics though...
Spengler had a chapter about this in Decline of the West. His claim is basically that real philosophers have to know mathematics that in a sense, mathematics is real philosophy and all real philosophy is mathematical. That said, he never said they need to be formally trained.
Tangentially related but I'm kinda hoping some turbo autistic completes Betrand Russell's system of mathematics. Apparently even after wasting a decade on it he estimated it was only a third done and decided to throw in the towel.
Math god here. We do philosophy. The problem is that midwitted ackadummic philosoplebs are too moronic to understand it and hence fail to acknowledge it.
>Math god here
I bet you heckin love science.
Yeah, science is pretty cool.
https://xkcd.com/435/
>Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Leibniz
All the great philosophers were also heavily interested in physics and math. Philosophy only went to shit when it separated itself from STEM. The German idealists turned philosophy into pointless language games.