Same delusion. Namely that all of reality can be explained by phenomenal relationships. They both believe that there is some truth that exists if I can just figure out how A relates to B.
They can prove all of the interesting phenomenal relations they want and never once touch the nature of anything. Just say "oh, that's funny that this works like this."
Mathematics is the study of supra-phenomenal relationships. You will never find mathematical laws in phenomena. This is evident due to how heavily scientific theory depends on mathematical reality, and not vice versa.
>When and where did I imply anything can access true reality?
here:
>never once touch the nature of anything
If you're implying that a nature of anything exists without any possibility of access to it, it's worse than I initially though.
>Are you moronic?
I may be, which makes your case all the more serious.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Based moron. Let me clear it up for you.
>If you're implying that a nature of anything exists without any possibility of access to it, it's worse than I initially though.
I'm implying that if we accidentally knew everything we could never know if its everything, therefore the category will always escape us. ergo we can never know everything.
Because math is undeniable in the exact way philosophy wants to be.
(IMO)
I fail to see the countless number of unproven/uncertain conjectures that arose from axioms already expounded upon beyond nature like number-theoretic meandering as “undeniable”
>unproven/uncertain conjectures
If they are unproven, then they are not undeniable. The proof exists though, so if we find it, then it will be undeniable if you accept the axioms as
You can deny the most basic axioms in maths and no one will ever be able to prove you wrong. So no, maths is not undeniable, neither is philosophy.
This isn't really the case. True philosophers with mathematical backgrounds are rare. The genius in mathematics always end up just going balls-deep into pure maths, and you can't really call that philosophy. Most mathematics-philosophers are unbearable pseuds like Russell who don't understand either and are compensating for it both ways.
All of the following philosophers either had mathematical backgrounds, taught mathematics, wrote on mathematics, or were actual mathematicians who made significant mathematical contributions:
>pseuds like Russell who don't understand either and are compensating for it both ways.
t. the philosophy dropout who never understood anything past highschool algebra
Anon, Russel gave up on mathematics sfter Godel's famous two theorems and decided to publish papers in random things (among them in how being a cuck is a good thing hust because his father was a cuck).
Yes, I know, he was smug libtard anglo degen homosexual; and yeah, I agree, he was a midwit, but he was a high I.Q. midwit. I'm not going to pretend like he made no contributions to mathematics or philosophy worth caring about, especially when his work in both fields directly influenced people like Gödel and Wittgenstein.
This sentence: >pseuds like Russell who don't understand either and are compensating for it both ways.
just reads way too dismissively to me for someone whose work really was profound in many ways.
No one really cares if you deny that the axioms are true though. The undeniable part is that the theorems logically follows from the axioms. It's like playing a game, you can deny that the rules of chess are "true" but you can't deny that a certain board position is possible using those rules.
I challenge the premise of this question. Maths and philosophy may have a close relationship but career mathematicians rarely make good philosophy and career philosophers simply can't into math
I believe this has more to do with making these subjects as “careers” in the modern sense means you hyper specializing in that given field. If you look at scholars in the past, this wasnt an issue. Hell back then academics had to at least know things like Latin to be taken seriously because no matter your field you were expected to know things outside your specialty. As times went on we stopped this especially after industrial revolution
because math is also fake and gay
Math is real.
Makes sense.
Same delusion. Namely that all of reality can be explained by phenomenal relationships. They both believe that there is some truth that exists if I can just figure out how A relates to B.
They can prove all of the interesting phenomenal relations they want and never once touch the nature of anything. Just say "oh, that's funny that this works like this."
filtered
Mathematics is the study of supra-phenomenal relationships. You will never find mathematical laws in phenomena. This is evident due to how heavily scientific theory depends on mathematical reality, and not vice versa.
SPEAK ENGLISH EINSTEIN
how do I study phenomenal relationships then
>Same delusion. Namely that all of reality can be explained by phenomenal relationships.
>As opposed to the elect few with access to true reality.
Anon, the first step away from your inferiority complex is to accept your limitations.
>As opposed to the elect few with access to true reality.
What? When and where did I imply anything can access true reality? Are you moronic?
>When and where did I imply anything can access true reality?
here:
>never once touch the nature of anything
If you're implying that a nature of anything exists without any possibility of access to it, it's worse than I initially though.
>Are you moronic?
I may be, which makes your case all the more serious.
Based moron. Let me clear it up for you.
>If you're implying that a nature of anything exists without any possibility of access to it, it's worse than I initially though.
I'm implying that if we accidentally knew everything we could never know if its everything, therefore the category will always escape us. ergo we can never know everything.
autism
Auti-
Beat to it.
Because there's nothing else worth pursuing.
Logical thinking lends itself to logical problems of all kinds.
No. There is a lot left apparently undone in mathematics though.
I fail to see the countless number of unproven/uncertain conjectures that arose from axioms already expounded upon beyond nature like number-theoretic meandering as “undeniable”
>unproven/uncertain conjectures
If they are unproven, then they are not undeniable. The proof exists though, so if we find it, then it will be undeniable if you accept the axioms as
points out (which most rational people do).
why do body builders stretch AND lift weights?
Their inherent madness applies well to both fields
this but unironically
Because math is just another logical system that uses symbols to convey meaning
Telos seeks logos
because math like philosophy are subjects that can be practiced by people who don't go outside.
people who are insecure about their intelligence self-rationalizing.
Both stupid and insecure anon. What's with all the fragile egos on this thread?
This isn't really the case. True philosophers with mathematical backgrounds are rare. The genius in mathematics always end up just going balls-deep into pure maths, and you can't really call that philosophy. Most mathematics-philosophers are unbearable pseuds like Russell who don't understand either and are compensating for it both ways.
All of the following philosophers either had mathematical backgrounds, taught mathematics, wrote on mathematics, or were actual mathematicians who made significant mathematical contributions:
>Thales of Miletus (The first philosopher)
>Pythagoras
>Hippasus
>Zeno of Elea
>Anaxagoras
>Democritus
>Hippias of Elis
>Archytas
>Plato
>Xenocrates
>Aristotle
>Chrysippus
>Proclus
>Simplicius of Cilicia
>Hypatia
>Boethius
>Bede
>Al-Kindi
>Avicenna
>Khayyam
>Abelard
>Averroes
>Roger Bacon
>William of Ockham
>Oresme
>Nicholas of Cusa
>Bruno
>Hobbes
>Malebranche
>Gassendi
>Descartes
>Arnauld
>Pascal
>Newton
>Leibniz
>Wolff
>Berkeley
>Maupertuis
>Boscovich
>d'Alembert
>de Condorcet
>Reid
>Bayes
>Kant
>Bolzano
>Charles Babbage
>Whewell
>Carlyle
>Boole
>Marx
>Bergson
>Husserl
>Peirce
>Bernays
>Frege
>Russell
>Whitehead
>Gödel
>Wittgenstein
>Brouwer
>Weyl
>Carnap
>Ramsey
>Quine
>Lakatos
>Tarski
>Putnam
>Kripke
>pseuds like Russell who don't understand either and are compensating for it both ways.
t. the philosophy dropout who never understood anything past highschool algebra
Anon, Russel gave up on mathematics sfter Godel's famous two theorems and decided to publish papers in random things (among them in how being a cuck is a good thing hust because his father was a cuck).
Yes, I know, he was smug libtard anglo degen homosexual; and yeah, I agree, he was a midwit, but he was a high I.Q. midwit. I'm not going to pretend like he made no contributions to mathematics or philosophy worth caring about, especially when his work in both fields directly influenced people like Gödel and Wittgenstein.
This sentence:
>pseuds like Russell who don't understand either and are compensating for it both ways.
just reads way too dismissively to me for someone whose work really was profound in many ways.
Mathematics is applied philosophy
Because math is undeniable in the exact way philosophy wants to be.
(IMO)
You can deny the most basic axioms in maths and no one will ever be able to prove you wrong. So no, maths is not undeniable, neither is philosophy.
No one really cares if you deny that the axioms are true though. The undeniable part is that the theorems logically follows from the axioms. It's like playing a game, you can deny that the rules of chess are "true" but you can't deny that a certain board position is possible using those rules.
Math is a philosophy
I challenge the premise of this question. Maths and philosophy may have a close relationship but career mathematicians rarely make good philosophy and career philosophers simply can't into math
I believe this has more to do with making these subjects as “careers” in the modern sense means you hyper specializing in that given field. If you look at scholars in the past, this wasnt an issue. Hell back then academics had to at least know things like Latin to be taken seriously because no matter your field you were expected to know things outside your specialty. As times went on we stopped this especially after industrial revolution
They get tired of being useless