Does philosophy make you miserable?

[dragonoverlord]

If you think to deeply about some questions in philosophy will it leave you miserable?

[Bolshevist]

Not at all. I get excited!

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 07:21 PM
If you think to deeply about some questions in philosophy will it leave you miserable?
What philosophical questions? I guess it would depend on what the questions are and what conclusions you make from them.

Personally I get a good giggle out of many philosophical questions.

[Redmau5]

Im currently doing Philosophy in school, and it is some of the most head-melting stuff I have ever done. We are basically looking at the arguments for and against the existence of a god. It's pretty boring stuff.

[Jimmie Higgins]

"How could god, if good, create evil?" and all that? Sounds like a waste of time. Just remeber what Marx said: Philosophers only interpret the world, the point is to change the world.

[KC]

Im currently doing Philosophy in school, and it is some of the most head-melting stuff I have ever done. We are basically looking at the arguments for and against the existence of a god. It's pretty boring stuff.

I find that stuff immensely interesting. Why do you find it boring?

[Roses in the Hospital]

Some philosophising can be exceptionally depressing, but most of the time it's out weighed by the interest of the subject...

[Xvall]

Yes. But it's better than being stupid and content.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 08:17 PM

Im currently doing Philosophy in school, and it is some of the most head-melting stuff I have ever done. We are basically looking at the arguments for and against the existence of a god. It's pretty boring stuff.

I find that stuff immensely interesting. Why do you find it boring?
Well some of it is interesting. But it often seems that the arguments just go round in circles. People spend all day debating whether the universe has a purpose and whether it was a god that created it, but at the end of it people end up at square one. So I think it's pretty pointless arguing and searching for something which can never possibly be known or found.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 10:02 PM
So I think it's pretty pointless arguing and searching for something which can never possibly be known or found.
It would be kinda dull if that is the attitude from which you approach it. If you come at it right though you can realise things about everyday lfe you could never of conceived.

Personally don't find it depressing, have been through a faze, nearly went apoltical for a while, went on a journey really. There is a feeling I associate with it but I now find it more liberating than depressing, I think philosophy is much like an acid trip in some ways.

[ComradeOm]

I wish philosophy was more like an acid trip :P

Maybe its my engineering background but I simply can't get my head around this philosophy stuff. Even the economic aspects of Marx's work I can understand, with difficulty, but its like I'm banging my head against a brick wall whenever I try my hand at philosophy.

[Led Zeppelin]

Philosophy is mental masturbation.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 01:09 PM
I wish philosophy was more like an acid trip :P

Maybe its my engineering background but I simply can't get my head around this philosophy stuff. Even the economic aspects of Marx's work I can understand, with difficulty, but its like I'm banging my head against a brick wall whenever I try my hand at philosophy.
It can be in some senses, if you strip your self of all preconception of truth or knowledge when comfronting an issue, you can assess it with honesty that some people find on certain mind alterring drugs., Without the distortion of what a sober person considers reality. "Door of Perception" talks about a brain that can conceive everything, but acts as a filter so as to make us comprehend a wold in which we can exist. Philosophy can have a very disquietening effect when allow yourself to think in certain ways.

It isn't always easy to get your head around, especially as a lot of texts that could really get people, even with preconceptions, into philosophy use purposely esoteric terminology and language to preserve an itellectual audience. Sometimes concepts require previous knowledge and understanding.

Read Descartes mediations for an some idea of the approach I suggested above. However this is a piece riddled with intellectual shortcomings in my oppinion, just not a bad idea.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 21 2005, 01:13 PM
Philosophy is mental masturbation.
That post was verbal masturbation :lol:

No seriously though, is there any reason you think that, is it based on a particular precdonception of what philosophy is?

Pretty much any extended thinking can be classed as philosophical. I don't see what you are advocating here as a self proclaimed Marxist against philosophy?

[Led Zeppelin]

Ermm.....masturbation is a good thing, remember?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 21 2005, 01:52 PM
Ermm.....masturbation is a good thing, remember?
Touche...I will give you that one. It was based on preconception I gave negative connatations to a term that is supposed to be used positively. I actually really like that phrase in this context, mind if I use that in future?

I know this may seem like spam but it is definitely not: It is for that reason that it is hard talking about communism, accepted values attributed to terms can be different, it is even more relevant on a messege board when you can tell nothing by body language.

[Led Zeppelin]

I actually really like that phrase in this context, mind if I use that in future?


Go ahead.

I'm sorry for the confusion. :)

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Logic - Christ yeah (little nonsensical symbols do my head in.)

Existentialism - I get quite a kick out of that actually.

[councilcommie]

things like descartes make me feeel quite good. he offers existance without religion, which i like. philosophy helps me at least to understand what i believe, not just what other people do.

[Donnie]

Im currently doing Philosophy in school, and it is some of the most head-melting stuff I have ever done. We are basically looking at the arguments for and against the existence of a god. It's pretty boring stuff.
I do philosophy at uni and I find it pretty dull at the moment, where studying socratic question like 'What is X'; X being peity, virtue and justice. I've nodded off plenty of times in philosophy class.

But I suppose it will get intresting as we get along.

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 11:15 PM
Im currently doing Philosophy in school, and it is some of the most head-melting stuff I have ever done. We are basically looking at the arguments for and against the existence of a god. It's pretty boring stuff.
How horrible,

I remember at my county college we had a professor who was also a minister and highlighted that stuff pretty much only, made me hate philosophy.

Then we started a "Free Thinkers Club" unfortunately someone tried to accreditate us and he demanded to be our proctor, so we disbanded the club.

The point of the club was epistemology or the idea that everyone experiences a different reality based on perspective.

Anyways, epistemology is very exciting, from Kant to Freire it's about how do we know the world outside our noses exists? All we know is we are breathing, like in The Matrix, we have no way of knowing if things truly exist the way we see it, it's all perspective. An amazing realization to have prior to death, because you realize if there is no one reality you can change it.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 11:59 PM
things like descartes make me feeel quite good. he offers existance without religion, which i like. philosophy helps me at least to understand what i believe, not just what other people do.
It is partially because of god I dislike Descartes. I have often wondered if the earlier philosophers simply lied about their theism so as to get their work out their. It does make more sense with many people's works. I have found reconcilling their philosophies with the existence of god almost embarrassing at times, perhaps this was done intentionally poorly?

[ComradeRed]

Philosophy is utterly useless. Philosophy to science is what masturbation is to true love (I think Marx said that somewhere).

Sure it's "fun" to talk about but it doesn't do anything. Worse, it can cause people to seriously question scientific laws(!). Heidegger and the subjectivists are those of whom I speak.

The antithetical forces to them are no better. Ayn Rand, for example, is a crackpot philistine. "A is A therefore man has the right to be insatiably greedy, and if you disagree you are therefore fallacious." :rolleyes:

The best way to utilize your time thinking abstractly is in science. Try and work on quantum computers, or nanomedicine, or something worthwhile!

[drain.you]

Surely it depends on your outlook on life and personality to how philosophy will make you feel. Anything you learn through philosophy you can reject as untrue, just like in politics/sociology/science/religion/etc. Guess the whole point is to figure out things in your own head, and if you are optimistic it will keep you happy, if not then perhaps you will be miserable. *shrugs*

[Chuck]

Philosophy is utterly useless. Philosophy to science is what masturbation is to true love

Except it's sex. Philosophy is to life as masturbation is to sex.

Eh. It depends on who you are, really. Philosophy can apply to the real world, but it's not advisable to just sit in your house and think.

[drain.you]

Hold on a minute, is this question philosophical? lol.
I mean, what is miserable? hee hee :P

[Bannockburn]

Pretty much any extended thinking can be classed as philosophical.

What is extended thinking...and no.


things like descartes make me feeel quite good. he offers existance without religion, which i like.

Yeah, but only your own existence. Outside of that, you need God. Read the rest of the meditations. Once you get out of the 16th century...Descartes will be critiqued through every aspect.


I do philosophy at uni and I find it pretty dull at the moment, where studying socratic question like 'What is X'; X being peity, virtue and justice.

Mmm. Sounds like first year. Its important nevertheless. You'll need to know it. You need to know the grass roots.


Philosophy is utterly useless

Right....obviously you've never studied the subject.


Worse, it can cause people to seriously question scientific laws

no, that would be a good things

Does it leave you miserable? Sometimes. Look at David Hume. For myself, I can only say that it leaves me miserable not because of the questions, concerns, etc, but the lack of everyone else's lack of concerns and questions.

[Commie Rat]

i am a very logical and scientific person and most philisophical question just fuck with my mind

Ps

Circle pits work better then drugs

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 02:15 PM
Philosophy is utterly useless. Philosophy to science is what masturbation is to true love (I think Marx said that somewhere).
This is far to simplistic for my taste. Like masturbation, Philosophy can be an important exercize :P Obviously, people thinking "outside of the box" is important in our struggle against mainstream reactionary thinking. Though, as you might get from that Marx reference, philosophy is ineffectual compared to scientific thinking, though parallel important (you really have to understand scientific method!). Being a philosopher and making no contribution to the material world, is a wasted life (in the materialist realm) as Marx would undoubtedly agree.

[gilhyle]

I did philosophy for more years than I care to count. As a subject it is incredibly ineffective, confused, clique-based, self-indulgent etc.

But there is no better 'bluffers guide'.

When you study the philosophy of science, of the social sciences, of economics, epistemology, metaphysics you learn the geography of the dominant ideologies - when the same issues then come up in different academic subjects and different parts of life, you have a head start.

If philosophy is masturbation, its kinda like the Masters and Johnsons Stop-Start method - you get practice with some important muscles.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by "Bannockburn"+--> ("Bannockburn")
Right....obviously you've never studied the subject. [/b] I've studied enough metaphysics and epistemology for several lifetimes. Some of it is interesting (epistemology, to me, is an interesting albeit useless subject; let's stop talking about how we know things and instead learn things)...most of it remains useless.

Ethics, however, I'm not too crazy about since "anything" can be considered just as "correct" as anything else. Additionally, it is largely the "ace-in-the-hole" of reactionary arguments; elementary logic tears down any and all reactionary ethics.



no, that would be a good things Why? I can understand questioning theoretic things that aren't grounded in reality (viz. string theory...I hate it so much); but questioning something like Newtonian physics as wrong on the basis that one creates one's own reality is foolish.

Although it "does make you think", right? Curiously, I have had more "critical thinking" with math (analysis, model theory, etc.) than I have with Hegel (or any crackpot, err philospher, you wish). Philosophy is essentially an inferior form of word problems.

Even computer programming is superior to philosophy (albeit eventually inheriting it); you learn logic, ethics (property rights and whatnot), and actually metaphysics (look up The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs (http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-4.html#%_toc_start), it is essentially Hegelian computer programming!).


Originally posted by "313C7 iVi4RX"@
Obviously, people thinking "outside of the box" is important in our struggle against mainstream reactionary thinking. No argument here.

Arguably, mathematics fosters creativity. How you tackle a problem compared to how I would are two different methods; but when you get into higher math, you realize how to cut the crap and get the answer faster and more effeciently.

You also remember to take things into account most people can't (e.g. time) in fields necessary for justification of revolution (e.g. economics, proof that capitalism will collapse). And, best, you can prove that bourgeois theoreticians bullshit (when applied dynamically) implies just the opposite of their theories!

For example, if you apply supply and demand curves to time, it succumbs to Ricardian economics (I am writing a paper on this in my free time, I am preoccupied with a science paper unfortunately). Philosophy couldn't tell you this.

I suppose if you were to take the "ultimate" form of philosophical reasoning (dialectics, or whatever) and translated it into math, you would then have the best logic ever.


Though, as you might get from that Marx reference, philosophy is ineffectual compared to scientific thinking, though parallel important (you really have to understand scientific method!). Interesting you brought this up, it was something I was fascinated with when I studied philosophy. I evaluated the various forms of the scientific method (viz. Newton's, Descartes', and Bacon's). It was the most fascinating side of (I guess one could say) epistemology.

But again I persist in my thoughts that math is the superior scafold for the scientific method. Newton and Descartes silently accepted this (viz. Newton in his Principia). There really isn't anything philosophy can do which math can't do better.


"gilhyle"
But there is no better 'bluffers guide'. Absolutely true! And this is exactly why philosophy is useless: it can only create bullshit, not truth )or a method thereto).

That is why mathematics is superior to philosophy: it can be used to actually "prove" things. It provides the best method to do anything in economics, whatever.

[OleMarxco]

Hmm, a philosophical question about philosophy, indeed - Almost "meta-philosophy"! ;) Anyways, 'nuff anectodes 'bout Metasophy, right, Sofie? Hey, where ya goin'!? Anyways, di'ya know, "Sophie" means Wisdom, that's 'cuz it's Philosophy...and those of you out there, stop 'scusin' the merit's of Philosophy, it's gettin' worn out, you're as worse as what you critic. To be the only one so far - withouth bravado - to really answer this question;
Yes it might do; If you're weak at psychial health, foo! We chap's with da strong psyche ain't cut out 'cuz o'ris shit. Feh'sho, existantialism is the most depressin' than', and science can't ANSWER that, but religion can't either :D

[Chuck]

That is why mathematics is superior to philosophy

Mathematics deals with the physical, the conceivable. Philosophy is more a way to deal with the intangible.

Life cannot exist without either.

[Zingu]

Philosophic thinking can lead to misery; but ultimately; ignorance is not bliss.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 08:04 PM
Mathematics deals with the physical, the conceivable. Philosophy is more a way to deal with the intangible.

Life cannot exist without either.
Humans maybe but really, people do live without giving much consideration to philosophy and you could live without the consept of mathematics, many would die though.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Comrade Red: I see where you are coming from, but I think of philosophy having a very different role than perhaps you expect it to have. First of all Hegel wasn't that great. You said any hilosopher, but that depends on what a philosopher is, it seems to me that at the very highest level of any study philosophy will at least begin to creep in.

Questioning Newton on the line you suggested may be useless, but questioning Newton isn't. That is why we need philosophy. Regardless of whether or not something is "right" it needs to be constantly reassessed to see if there is an improvement upon it, or a better theory altogether. Without this we would have ended on Newton 300 years ago. We were stuck for too long as it was.

Maths is excellent, but really it is only giving values to things we percieve. By calling something a chair I did not change what it already was, in the same way that labelling a triange with a 3cm adjacent side does not change anything. It is useful only for communication of things that would otherwise happen. Instruction if you will that can be commonly understood, not a lot else.

Philosophical doubt is vital to any thought, especially scientific. Whether it is on a small level or dealing with the nature of reality. The earlier however is useful in day to day use. Just as biology is daily useful and astronomy not quite so readily useable.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by "Hegemonicretribution"+--> ("Hegemonicretribution") Comrade Red: I see where you are coming from, but I think of philosophy having a very different role than perhaps you expect it to have.[/b] Maybe...I know that a few of my (self-proclaimed) "philosopher" friends do disagree with me.

Some of my friends argued that Descartes, Leibniz, Hume, Berkely, Locke, and Newton are important in methodology and epistemology. Yes, that may very well be true, but they began grounded in math and science.

And if we look back throughout time, the Greeks used geometry for their epistemological approaches. Math replacing philosophy is really nothing new, just something that sounds new.


Questioning Newton on the line you suggested may be useless, but questioning Newton isn't. That is why we need philosophy. Regardless of whether or not something is "right" it needs to be constantly reassessed to see if there is an improvement upon it, or a better theory altogether. Without this we would have ended on Newton 300 years ago. We were stuck for too long as it was. Curious you should bring this up, I was just reading a history of Newtonian mechanics (from Newton to Einstein) the other day.

Newtonian mechanics were criticized rigorously as early as with Leibniz (probably angry with the English for crediting calculus to Newton). But the genius of Newton is with sticking to his beliefs despite knowing they were wrong; he knew all the flaws of "absolute" space and time, and that he couldn't improve the relations of spacetime.

Newton left the task to someone else (Einstein), but if we had tried to "improve" Newtonian mechanics in the 17th Century would have proven fruitless (and until the 19th century, it remained that way).

Questioning the validity of something does not make it de facto philosophy. When the questioning leads to metaphysics, then it becomes philosophy (and irrelevant). Einstein's work proves this point.



Maths is excellent, but really it is only giving values to things we percieve. [...] Instruction if you will that can be commonly understood, not a lot else. Math, I feel, proves itself to be a superior form of logic. Rather than the Aristotlean "true or false", there is a new method: "justified", "unjustified", or "undetermined".

One can easily cite examples of these from math, e.g. 1+1=2 is justified (it can't really be proven, as Henri Poincaré pointed out), 1+1=3 is unjustified (based on the previous "proof"), and 1+r=3 is unjustified (unless we define "r" by it).

Look at Euclid, his entire Elements was nothing but an exercise of logic. He proves a number of propositions no one would really suspect possible (given no knowledge of geometry). His work was landmark, and demonstrates the logical rigor of mathematics.



Philosophical doubt is vital to any thought, especially scientific. Whether it is on a small level or dealing with the nature of reality. Yet philosophical doubt can lead to solopsism, which is utterly useless (a sort of philosophical "last stand").

Logical scepticism, assuming that is what is meant by "philosophical doubt", is useful. But as I mentioned, mathematics is a superior form of logic thus it should be considered first and foremost for this task.

It would be like choosing between a hammer and a chainsaw to chop down a tree; the latter is more effecient, yet the former is more fun. But when it comes down to it, it is the issue of pragmatism and dogmatism.


"Chuck"

Mathematics deals with the physical, the conceivable. Philosophy is more a way to deal with the intangible.But think about a simple problem: causality. Schisms and paradoxes arise with philosophical causality that become metaphysical in nature. This is, of course, with philosophy guiding the reasoning.

On the other hand if we look to mathematics, Dr. Judea Pearl explains such pseudo-paradoxes in the "language" of math...and presents something useful.

Actually, some of the best theoretical phycists have been trying to integrate causality in a possibly new "quantum theory of motion". Philosophy couldn't do this, math can.

Philosophy remains utterly useless at any of this. Math has proven itself useful in yet another field.

[Bannockburn]

I've studied enough metaphysics and epistemology for several lifetimes. Some of it is interesting (epistemology, to me, is an interesting albeit useless subject; let's stop talking about how we know things and instead learn things)...most of it remains useless.

I doubt it. I've never heard such a arrogant statement. Moreover, to know, is to learn, ego, you've contradicted yourself.



Ethics, however, I'm not too crazy about since "anything" can be considered just as "correct" as anything else. Additionally, it is largely the "ace-in-the-hole" of reactionary arguments; elementary logic tears down any and all reactionary ethics.

This further my argument. Ethics has nothing to do with being correct. It has to do with what is right and what is wrong. Claiming to know so much about metaphysics, ethics, and theory of knowledge, this should be obvious. Moreover, explain to me how logic tears down ethics? I fail to see where ethics, normative, applied, etc deals with deductive forms of arguments, (rather than what is said). That is what logic is about. Logic has nothing to do with what is said, only how it is structured among the argument.



Mathematics deals with the physical, the conceivable.

conceivable yes, but not the physical. Math is a priori synthetic, not a posteriori. For example the a posteriori can have a logical opposition which is conceivable, whereas math cannot. For example a square circle, or two lines cannot enclose a space. Whereas the physical “The sun will not rise” is logically conceivable and applies no contradiction. Therefore, I apologize, but math does not depend on the empirical.

Also, side statement. How is math superior to philosophy? I don't get it. I didn't get it with Plato either. Somebody explain this to me.

This leads me to this:



1+1=2 is justified (it can't really be proven, as Henri Poincaré pointed out),

Ah, yeah it can be proven. I don't know who this Henri guy is, but please read Kant if you can. It is proven on grounds that math/geometry depends on definition and the law of non-contradiction. We set definition, arbitrary or not does not matter, and we follow along those definitions in a logical manner. 1+1 = 3 cannot be possible because its a contradiction of the definition one. Ego, you're wrong. I'm not trying to be an asshole, but this is clearly intuitive. All math depends on definition on an a priori manner. If it contradicts out definitions, then the answer is wrong.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Math replacing philosophy is really nothing new, just something that sounds new.

The two are linked, I wouldn'y say however that maths rules philosophy, morelikely that math wasa result of a certain method of reasoning and empiricism. Where it stops being math and becomes something else is determined by philosophy.


But the genius of Newton is with sticking to his beliefs despite knowing they were wrong; he knew all the flaws of "absolute" space and time, and that he couldn't improve the relations of spacetime.

Similar to the problems with a so-called grand unification theory today.


Einstein's work proves this point.

I don't agree, it is possible to be philosophy and not meta-physics. evaluation and methodology, at least at the highest level, needs to be philosophically evaluated.


Math, I feel, proves itself to be a superior form of logic. Rather than the Aristotlean "true or false", there is a new method: "justified", "unjustified", or "undetermined".

I think that is a very broad statement, maths beat philosophy because it beats one of the Greeks? So much more has been identified than was thought possible during that time. Maths I still agree is good at studying objects in relation to one another, but not the objects themselves, if this isn't important then fine.



e.g. 1+1=2

I was going to use the same example :P But from Russell.


Look at Euclid, his entire Elements was nothing but an exercise of logic. He proves a number of propositions no one would really suspect possible (given no knowledge of geometry). His work was landmark, and demonstrates the logical rigor of mathematics.

Look at Marx, not proletariat, and wasn't really using maths. He drew his observations based on logic and history. I didn't say maths wasn't great, I am just yet to be shown how philosophy isn't.


Yet philosophical doubt can lead to solopsism, which is utterly useless (a sort of philosophical "last stand").

When you are getting to that level being percieved by the world we live in means little. I am not quite sure on this approach yet and I haven't a definite oppinion I can post so I will leave it at I am not sure.


Logical scepticism, assuming that is what is meant by "philosophical doubt", is useful. But as I mentioned, mathematics is a superior form of logic thus it should be considered first and foremost for this task.

You can study a mathmatic theory with philosophy, see how it was reasoned, and the justification of a claim to knowledge. You can't add up theories and prove philosophies wrong by maths. Unless of course you take it out of the context I mean and say for example, maths proved the moonstate againstt the church.


It would be like choosing between a hammer and a chainsaw to chop down a tree; the latter is more effecient, yet the former is more fun. But when it comes down to it, it is the issue of pragmatism and dogmatism.

Nice analogy :lol: anyway, I agree the chainsaw would get straight to it, essentially it is running on rails, it knows it is right and will follow through the method. The Harry the hammer would question why the tree is being cut down, how it is being cut down, the effect....everything. Of course it can set itself on rails as well if it wants, but they will have been thought through. That could mean maths and logic, just like Charlie chainsaw, or a different route, perhaps choosing to save all trees.

Sorry about that I got a little carried away, but basically philosophy allows for maths and science, it just also allows for it to be wrong, and for itself to be wrong.


Actually, some of the best theoretical phycists have been trying to integrate causality in a possibly new "quantum theory of motion". Philosophy couldn't do this, math can.

The theory was as much born out of philosophy, if not more, than maths.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by "Hegemonicretribution"+--> ("Hegemonicretribution")The two are linked, I wouldn'y say however that maths rules philosophy, morelikely that math wasa result of a certain method of reasoning and empiricism. Where it stops being math and becomes something else is determined by philosophy.[/b] Maybe...but my point is that math is a superior form of reasoning. What you do with it is up to you entirely.

I could analyze the causality of the universe or the markets, regardless of the task the method remains the same. Yet suppose we were to manipulate this method in untestable ways, what do we get?

Is it really philosophy? Well, they call it "Pure Mathematics" (think of it like "pure alcohol"); it is nothing more than the manipulation of what all ready exists. For example, we can see and "experience" Euclidean geometry (we all know what a triangle is), but algebraic geometry is something that no one can really visualize (imagine a "set-ary-angle").

How this then becomes applied is a matter of what problems and tasks one faces. If you would like to call that philosophy, all right, but it seems to be more along the lines of applied mathematics.



Similar to the problems with a so-called grand unification theory today. Odd you should pick this topic, I am studying it myself! No "real" phycist would "waste" his time on a GUT (or even a Unified Field Theory!). Now they are more ambitious: a purely diagrammatic scheme of the universe.

But the dilemmas are similiar: how do we rewrite quantum mechanics so that it is deterministic (easier than it sounds) and also dynamic (in the relativistic sense, which is the hard part)? Once we have this, how do we rewrite the existing quantum field theories in terms of this new quantum language? And can gravity be included into it?

The problems are similiar, in that everything needs to be rewritten; yet they are completely different since it deals primarily with the mathematical formalism of the theories.



I don't agree, it is possible to be philosophy and not meta-physics. evaluation and methodology, at least at the highest level, needs to be philosophically evaluated. What about Descartes' Principes? It was pure mathematics applied to problem-solving (or algorithms, if you'd like).

The methodology and evaluation may be qualitative but it ultimately relies on mathematical validity. Science would not have gotten off the ground if this were otherwise; and to a large extent it remains true now (viz. with string theory).



I think that is a very broad statement, maths beat philosophy because it beats one of the Greeks? So much more has been identified than was thought possible during that time. Maths I still agree is good at studying objects in relation to one another, but not the objects themselves, if this isn't important then fine. Ah, at first site this is true; however, when you get into the real headache causing areas of graduate math, it becomes qualitative. For example, algebraic structures, topos, group theory, systems theory, etc.

You can create, quantitatively, any qualitative structure you'd like. This structure (presumably based on a real one) could then be verified.



Look at Marx, not proletariat, and wasn't really using maths. He drew his observations based on logic and history. I didn't say maths wasn't great, I am just yet to be shown how philosophy isn't. Ahh, interesting you should bring this up...it turns out Marx had a manuscript of math notes! (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/mathematical-manuscripts/index.htm)

But you are right, he did formulate his thoughts before he learned this math.

Coincidentally, I was reading a book on methodology of science within social science (from a bourgeois social scientist, of course) and he comes (independently) to the conclusion that Marx's method was correct through mathematical equations alone.

So with what it takes geniuses to do in philosophy, a philistine could do with math. Philosophy is still an acceptable tool, yet math is superior; it's like using clubs and ploughs, or hammers and tractors.



When you are getting to that level being percieved by the world we live in means little. I am not quite sure on this approach yet and I haven't a definite oppinion I can post so I will leave it at I am not sure. To be honest, I think that those who are solipsists don't want to be understood.


You can study a mathmatic theory with philosophy, see how it was reasoned, and the justification of a claim to knowledge. You can't add up theories and prove philosophies wrong by maths. Unless of course you take it out of the context I mean and say for example, maths proved the moonstate againstt the church. One may be able to do that, although it would prove extremely difficult. Without any training in math, it appears to be just elegant squigles. Reasoning therein would be like reasoning with pictographs.

I agree with your latter comment but for a different reason. You can't prove philosophy wrong with math because there will be someone who says "You haven't understood [the philosopher] correctly."

Taking your example further, we can disprove the existence of "God" with the Big Bang. Afterall, if anything exists it must exist somewhere and at sometime. If "God" created the universe (space and time) and "He" exists, where and when did "He" exist before the Big Bang?

The Christian response is, naturally, "You don't understand the Bible correctly."

It is a futile struggle.


Sorry about that I got a little carried away, but basically philosophy allows for maths and science, it just also allows for it to be wrong, and for itself to be wrong. Math permits itself to this advantage as well. There is a formalism that allows you to tinker with the rules of math (or, alternatively, logic) and figure out the consequences through "elementary" abstract algebra.

Model theory allows for someone to investigate the underlying assumptions of a model mathematically.

The list goes on. At first sight, philosophy appears to have an advantage; yet upon further investigation the opposite is true.



The theory was as much born out of philosophy, if not more, than maths. Initially, I would have agreed with you. However, after studying the mathematics of causality and the quantum theory of motion, it appears to be nothing more than an exercise within pure mathematics.

It follows "KISS" -- "Keep it stupid, simple".


"Bannockburn"

I doubt it. I've never heard such a arrogant statement. Moreover, to know, is to learn, ego, you've contradicted yourself. Maybe...but I think you are taking my quote too literally.

Afterall, how much philosophy can you take before you dislike it? Imagine eating only one sort of food for the rest of your life (albeit composed of many types of food). You'd get pretty sick of it.

I did.



This further my argument. Ethics has nothing to do with being correct. It has to do with what is right and what is wrong. Yes, right and wrong, and correct and incorrect, are clearly two different concepts completely.

But how can there be an incorrect right? Or a correct wrong?


Moreover, explain to me how logic tears down ethics? I fail to see where ethics, normative, applied, etc deals with deductive forms of arguments, (rather than what is said). That is what logic is about. Logic has nothing to do with what is said, only how it is structured among the argument. Ethics is the only justification for bourgeois society.

How can logic not tear down such an obvious contradiction?



conceivable yes, but not the physical. Math is a priori synthetic, not a posteriori. For example the a posteriori can have a logical opposition which is conceivable, whereas math cannot. For example a square circle, or two lines cannot enclose a space. Whereas the physical “The sun will not rise” is logically conceivable and applies no contradiction. Therefore, I apologize, but math does not depend on the empirical. Yet wouldn't this imply that logic is reducible to one big tautology?

If mathematics were really apriori syntetic, logically all its fields would benefit from it as well (geometry is no more a priori synthetic than is algebra). Yet logic is a field of math; and isn't logic empirical?



Also, side statement. How is math superior to philosophy? I don't get it. I didn't get it with Plato either. Somebody explain this to me. Well, what part of Plato don't you understand? I mean no offense, your statement seemed a little ambiguous.

Plato's big leap forward was saying that there was an ideal object (say, an ideal computer), from which all computers can be judged. We can clearly tell from the ideal computer whether an object is a computer or not.

That's his "big thing".

What I mean by math being superior to philosophy is that philosophy falls victim to linguistics and rhetoric; you can essentially make anything sound correct or incorrect.

Mathematics exposes the correctness of a proposition as it is.

Further philosophy spends a lot of time on useless things; I've become more pragmatic as I've studied science and math. I feel that everything can be reduced to math to present superior analysis.



Ah, yeah it can be proven. I don't know who this Henri guy is, but please read Kant if you can. It is proven on grounds that math/geometry depends on definition and the law of non-contradiction. We set definition, arbitrary or not does not matter, and we follow along those definitions in a logical manner. 1+1 = 3 cannot be possible because its a contradiction of the definition one. Ego, you're wrong. I'm not trying to be an asshole, but this is clearly intuitive. All math depends on definition on an a priori manner. If it contradicts out definitions, then the answer is wrong. Check out Henri Poincaré's works, he is a self-admited Kantian (and perhaps the best damn mathematician who ever lived).

Poincaré restates Kant in terms of mathematics; what you and I are saying (on this matter) are essentially the same.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Is it really philosophy? Well, they call it "Pure Mathematics" (think of it like "pure alcohol"); it is nothing more than the manipulation of what all ready exists. For example, we can see and "experience" Euclidean geometry (we all know what a triangle is), but algebraic geometry is something that no one can really visualize (imagine a "set-ary-angle").

This is the point I was making, you may well disagree, but what is philosophy? At the highest level of maths I would say it has began to be philosophy. At lower levels maths can be criticised by philosophy, more-so than philosophy by maths. I see where you are coming from now, but I think I just use the term "philosophy" in a much broader sense.


Odd you should pick this topic, I am studying it myself! No "real" phycist would "waste" his time on a GUT (or even a Unified Field Theory!). Now they are more ambitious: a purely diagrammatic scheme of the universe.

Was having a good debate about this with Lazar. I accepted that it may be possible, but I think it is as irrational to put faith in this as a second coming of Jesus. I don't know how people can't find the cutting edge so fascinating, I don't even think that the theories they can produce will ever manage what they are attempting, but "beautiful equations".


What about Descartes' Principes? It was pure mathematics applied to problem-solving (or algorithms, if you'd like).

I never said that an alternate aproach couldn't be taken, just that not maths doesn't have to equal meta-physics.


Ah, at first site this is true; however, when you get into the real headache causing areas of graduate math, it becomes qualitative. For example, algebraic structures, topos, group theory, systems theory, etc.

This is where I question it as maths. Or at least solely maths.


Marx had a manuscript of math notes!

I didn't know that, thanks :)


Coincidentally, I was reading a book on methodology of science within social science (from a bourgeois social scientist, of course) and he comes (independently) to the conclusion that Marx's method was correct through mathematical equations alone.

If I could see that I would be interested almost as much as I would be sceptical. Essentially you can prove almost anything with maths I would imagine, especially abstract ideas.


To be honest, I think that those who are solipsists don't want to be understood.

Agreed. Hence esoteric terminology and purposely ambiguous and provocative writing.


One may be able to do that, although it would prove extremely difficult. Without any training in math, it appears to be just elegant squigles. Reasoning therein would be like reasoning with pictographs.

I hear you there, first time I looked at Schroedinger's wave equation :blink: :huh: ?? To be honest I still don't know where I am with it, why can't it be easier like relativity? :P


I agree with your latter comment but for a different reason. You can't prove philosophy wrong with math because there will be someone who says "You haven't understood [the philosopher] correctly."

That is a problem with almost all qualitative data to some extent, although especially where meaning is contested. Try adding up "Thus spoke Zaranthustra".


Taking your example further, we can disprove the existence of "God" with the Big Bang. Afterall, if anything exists it must exist somewhere and at sometime. If "God" created the universe (space and time) and "He" exists, where and when did "He" exist before the Big Bang?

I like this example as well, however I prefer it for showing a flaw in Occam's Razor. That is the simplest answer could be God is right and incomprehendable. The big bang theory requires far more to happen in order to create the unverse we live in, even though it appears to be a better fitting theory.


Math permits itself to this advantage as well. There is a formalism that allows you to tinker with the rules of math (or, alternatively, logic) and figure out the consequences through "elementary" abstract algebra.

I can't really comment too much here, it is obvious you are at a far higher level of maths than I have reached. I am mostly self taught, so I will look into this when I get some free time because it sounds very interesting.


The list goes on. At first sight, philosophy appears to have an advantage; yet upon further investigation the opposite is true.

This is again down largely, to what we define philosophy as.

[ComradeRed]

At the highest level of maths I would say it has began to be philosophy. At lower levels maths can be criticised by philosophy, more-so than philosophy by maths. I see where you are coming from now, but I think I just use the term "philosophy" in a much broader sense. I agree that how one uses philosophy will affect how we are thinking about pure mathematics.

I use the old textbook definition of philosophy as a field consisting of five subfields: aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, and logic.

Arguably, one could say pure mathematics is aesthetically pleasing, has a metaphysical aura, has (definately several theories of) epistemology, and uses logic quite a bit. However, this seems to be putting the round peg in the square slot; mathematics (admittedly) has to deal with one, (maybe) two.


I don't know how people can't find the cutting edge so fascinating, I don't even think that the theories they can produce will ever manage what they are attempting, but "beautiful equations". The motivation behind quantum gravity is that you can create your own universe in relatively simplistic terms...and no two universes, given the same parameters, are identical.

It gives you a weird feeling of power, being able to say "Yeah, I'm the master of my own universe."



I never said that an alternate aproach couldn't be taken, just that not maths doesn't have to equal meta-physics. I believe that math is superior to metaphysics, particularly because you can do something useful with it.

Metaphysics is entertaining, but ultimately useless. Who cares if "A is A" or not? Does it change anything?

Math tells you "Provided A=A, then..."; there is no need to accept dogma, only conditions.



If I could see that I would be interested almost as much as I would be sceptical. Essentially you can prove almost anything with maths I would imagine, especially abstract ideas. OK, but it uses a lot of odd math (just a forewarning, I didn't expect it to be so strange). It's Analysis, control and optimization of complex dynamic systems; it's a mathematics book on social science (rather than the other way around, which I may have implied).



I hear you there, first time I looked at Schroedinger's wave equation blink.gif huh.gif ?? To be honest I still don't know where I am with it, why can't it be easier like relativity? tongue.gif Are you serious? For me general relativity was harder (no one around me knew tensors!).

Quantum theory isn't that hard, I mean after you accept its irrelevant.



That is a problem with almost all qualitative data to some extent, although especially where meaning is contested. But that's why philosophy is inferior to math; it doesn't exercise your logical-analytical skills but your semantical skills!

The skill to translate something into math equations is an invaluable skill. Anyone can put bull together to call itself philosophy.




I like this example as well, however I prefer it for showing a flaw in Occam's Razor. That is the simplest answer could be God is right and incomprehendable. The big bang theory requires far more to happen in order to create the unverse we live in, even though it appears to be a better fitting theory. Why would it not be the opposite? It's simplest saying there is no order to anything and thus God doesn't exist.



I can't really comment too much here, it is obvious you are at a far higher level of maths than I have reached. I am mostly self taught, so I will look into this when I get some free time because it sounds very interesting. Well, topos is really an esoteric field that has arisen in the last 50 years or so.

To be frank, I don't understand its applications to mathematical logic. I understand its mathematical applications, however, so if you want to learn more I'm willing to help out. Just ask after November 15th (I'm busy until then).

[gilhyle]

While I know nothing about maths, there are at least two points outstanding, notwithstanding your enthusiasm for maths (which must always prove itself in practice):

- the two disciplines (a loose term in relation to philosophy) are not fundamentally alike in form and therefore comparison is problematic - if you say maths is a superior form of reasoning, that assumes that philosophy is a form of reasoning, this is problematic;

- - philsoophy remains the predominant form for the work of the critique of philosophical thinking and it is as critique, not as belief-system, that it was always valuable to Marxism.

[ComradeRed]

- the two disciplines (a loose term in relation to philosophy) are not fundamentally alike in form and therefore comparison is problematic - if you say maths is a superior form of reasoning, that assumes that philosophy is a form of reasoning, this is problematic; I suppose this is true. Perhaps I should readdress my stance as mathematics is a superior form of reasoning compared to anything created by philosophy and thus creates better and more useful ideas.



- - philsoophy remains the predominant form for the work of the critique of philosophical thinking and it is as critique, not as belief-system, that it was always valuable to Marxism. I don't quite agree here because critique is nothing more than a logical argument demonstrating the underlying bias of another argument. This requires reasoning.

Of course, this goes back to mathematics as the superior form of reason.

Being as lazy as I am, mathematics is thus the obvious choice for reasoning. Some techniques of mathematical logic (when applied) may be considered "dialectical", "constructivistic", or whatever, but it doesn't change the fact that mathematical logic is the superior tool to criticism.

What could be more Marxist?

[Quota 76 denial]

If mathematics is a superior form of reason then why don't you speak in math equations only? If commiered actually believed that math is a superior to language then he would have accept that his only reason to practice mathematics is through that sort of logic, therefore how is it possible for him to understand the words of philosophy. The language that gave him science and natural law. In every respect he lives through theory and theory is assumed by philosophy. And every mathematical theory thus would represent philosophy but, what i think is that he does not want his world to be continously be deconstructed as a theory to his existence that is why he hides behind Math.

[ComradeRed]

If mathematics is a superior form of reason then why don't you speak in math equations only? If commiered actually believed that math is a superior to language then he would have accept that his only reason to practice mathematics is through that sort of logic, therefore how is it possible for him to understand the words of philosophy. I didn't say it was superior to language, damnit, I said it was superior to philosophical (clasical, etc.) logic. There's a difference!

But if you really want:

A⊢T⊻F;
I⊢T⊻F⊻¬T⊻¬F;
A→Q=F;
Q=¬F;
⊢A=F;
∎⊢I=T;


And every mathematical theory thus would represent philosophy but, what i think is that he does not want his world to be continously be deconstructed as a theory to his existence that is why he hides behind Math.

∃! x: M(x)→ x';
{M| x'⊆M};
x' ≠ P v P';
∎ M ≠ P, ∀x;


Again, I restate myself, I'm more pragmatic. Does it really matter whether I exist or not? I don't care, why do you? Will it affect anything, or be useful in anyway?

No.

Why waste time on it? Why don't you do something more useful? Focus your creative energy on science, or something that can help people!

[Lord Testicles]

Philosophy is to my mind a lot of hypothetical intospective piffle of no use at all, a lot of it is questions like "a tree falls in a forest, no one sees it, does it make a sound?" I couldn't care less really, but a philosopher worrys about that, and just before they die they say i could have been down the pub having a laugh.

-Bill Bayley

[gilhyle]

You write "I don't quite agree here because critique is nothing more than a logical argument demonstrating the underlying bias of another argument. This requires reasoning."

It is true that critique requires reasoning, but it is something else than reasoning. Critque is a proces of engagement with an alternative perspective which seeks to be persuasive, both by replicating the assumptions of the alterantive view point and showing that they don't lead to the conclusions they seem to lead to (the kind of reasoning you like) and a process of rejecting those assumptions.

In this way it differs from shared reasoning, which relies on shared assumptions or at least shared starting points. It differs from it in two ways. Firsty, it constrains the use of shared reasoning on the basis of a judgement of what reasoning is likely to be persuasive and what reasoning (however valid) is likely to be ignored by the opponent. Secondly, it accepts that reasning often relies on value (or stance) choices and it accepts the need to characterise such stances rather than seeking to reason with them (for example characterising a position as reactionary).

One other point worth mentioning. With my limited understanding of these things, I vaguely grasp the idea that going back to Boole and Frege etc. there is a possibility of maping relations in a way that allows a lot more reasoning to be formalised than was previously the case. But there remains an Hegelian argument, that it is, at least, unproven (and arguably wrong) to think that any combination of propositions concerning relations between discrete entities can encapsulate all that one wishes to say about totalities. This is the basis of 'dialectics' as I understand it - i.e. it concerns the consequences of uttering propositions about totalities that do not admit of consequences that are related to those propositions as implications. My impression is that this argument cannot be resolved.

There have been people who have tried to formalise Marxist economics, for example, but there are others who would argue that these attempts fail.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Sorry I took a while to reply, my computer froze last time and I haven't posted that much lately since.


I use the old textbook definition of philosophy as a field consisting of five subfields: aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, and logic.

As a subject in the traditional sense I appreciate more from where you are coming. However as an actvity in itslef, including about itself, it is fundamental in application of maths. I guess we can reduce anything to any level of scrutiny, I just tend to call it philosophy.


Arguably, one could say pure mathematics is aesthetically pleasing, has a metaphysical aura, has (definately several theories of) epistemology, and uses logic quite a bit. However, this seems to be putting the round peg in the square slot; mathematics (admittedly) has to deal with one, (maybe) two.

I don't use those definitions, but things falling into several camps to some extent is almost everything. It is not reasonable to assume that something will only call upon only one aspect of philosophy. I think we have established the main difference is that I include pure mathematics as part of philosophy and you as something seperate, there are other interesting issues however.


I believe that math is superior to metaphysics, particularly because you can do something useful with it.

Metaphysics is entertaining, but ultimately useless. Who cares if "A is A" or not? Does it change anything?

Math tells you "Provided A=A, then..."; there is no need to accept dogma, only conditions.

Philosophy is assessing these conditions. Within a framework maths is brilliant, and I see why we work within a framework. However if the framework is justified is fundamental, although perhaps not ultimately (within said framework) as useful. However not to assess the conditions that allow A to = A is a poor form of logic itself.

I am still developing my oppinions, and changing them in regards to philosophy, however I am seeing Wittgenstein's common sense argument as reasonable to some extent. Context in which you doubt things is important.

The reason I am reflective to the extent I am perhaps, is largely because I di in and out of irrationalism and relativism at times. Just an interesting area for me.


Are you serious? For me general relativity was harder (no one around me knew tensors!).

Quantum theory isn't that hard, I mean after you accept its irrelevant.

I am still not confident in all the math to be totally honest, but I at least feel I have an understanding of it.

Quantum theory isn't irrelevant, so many possibilities are open.


But that's why philosophy is inferior to math; it doesn't exercise your logical-analytical skills but your semantical skills!

It can do both. However I see the point. One thing though, how do you know that the relations between given premises or even the premises themselves are held equally true by any two people?


Why would it not be the opposite? It's simplest saying there is no order to anything and thus God doesn't exist.

I use both, I used the one hinting at religion because this is an environment with an atheistic tone. When talking with more religious I use the version you gave.

As for the other book and topos I will have to return to it once my work load has decreased. There is so much out there at the moment I want to get to grips with an so little time.

[Quota 76 denial]

I'm trying to help you realize yourself commiered. Or should I say trying to make you realize yourself as a "math equation". Is it possible in your math systems to negate yourself, or even better and more pragmatic never equal anything. You rely on analysis of math to define your esstential truth but in reality you never knew what is true. I mean i could argue that I respresent the same math solution as you do, but that would negate your existence. In the same respect that by calling you other than myself would give me cause to negate your existence. In both respects math would rationalize through language your exegenical telos on the world as possible nothingness. But this is not what you want, you gave yourself a name that was not associated with math your real name is not associated with a mathematical theorem but you reject the naming power to authenticate yourself through philosophic language. This might be the reason why Sartre equates the other with a draining vortex. We force what we want to be upon an others possibility, causing guilt. Of course you will rejct guilt too through math, and science but it is okay you will still feel guilt through names. Language is the single most important fact to mathematical existence but the logic of grammer is inherently metaphysical, like the rules for your math equations. Tell me have you seen infinity?

[tunes]

Just to throw out my ideas about philosophy, I recommend reading Ludwig Wittgenstein(Philosophical Investigations). He basically says that problems of philosophy arise when we use words in isolation from their normal use, i.e., try to use metaphysics to account for physics, etc. Words are part of many language games that have specific rules; like chess, football, baseball, etc. Though all the games have some similar rules, no two games are exactly alike. This kind of analogy can be made to language. The problems of philosophy arise when we try and seek this universal, underlying similarity that would unite the language games in question(again, for example, physics and metaphysics), but this kind of inquiry is useless to Wittgenstein. It is useless because there is no "perfectly definable" answer. There are only contingencies. Instead of dwelling on the goal of definite, perfectly mathematical, and precise answers to these questions, look at what the implications have in the real world. Instead of asking "what does this mean?", ask, "what is its use?".

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by "Hegemonicretribution"+--> ("Hegemonicretribution")As a subject in the traditional sense I appreciate more from where you are coming. However as an actvity in itslef, including about itself, it is fundamental in application of maths. I guess we can reduce anything to any level of scrutiny, I just tend to call it philosophy.[/b] As a subject, philosophy is a study aimed at the analysis of values, or reality, or etc. That is what I have been told, at least.

But philosophy, as presented by the philosophers, is something more than this. It is beyond reality, more of a metaphysical analysis.

There are those philosophers who consider themselves "beyond" those "other" philosophers, who think they are doing a credit to humanity with "applied" philosophy. The only "applied philosopher" who deserves credit for anything is Newton, and he's universally considered a scientist.

And that's what it boils down to: science and philosophy, the understandable and incoherent, the seekers of knowledge and knowledge of seekers.



Philosophy is assessing these conditions. Within a framework maths is brilliant, and I see why we work within a framework. However if the framework is justified is fundamental, although perhaps not ultimately (within said framework) as useful. However not to assess the conditions that allow A to = A is a poor form of logic itself. But why would you use philosophy for something that pragmatic empiricism can do? Would we really need Cartesian dualism, or Hegelian dialectics, or whatever?

If one wanted to screw around with the conditions to see what would happen if this condition were true, or that condition were true, what difference does it make?



I am still not confident in all the math to be totally honest, but I at least feel I have an understanding of it.

Quantum theory isn't irrelevant, so many possibilities are open. Well, quantum theory (from the Copenhagen interpretation -- the one taught at universities world wide) is pretty useless. There are better interpretations (viz. Bohmian mechanics).

That's tangential though. The point remains that once you accept math is the consequence of assigning values to symbols, nothing more, math becomes a smaller realm and thus easier (really easier).

Oddly enough, the gymnastics of these symbols is great practice for reasoning. You can actually deduce the consequences of changing a premise quicker than philosophy could ever hope for.



It can do both. However I see the point. One thing though, how do you know that the relations between given premises or even the premises themselves are held equally true by any two people? The existential argument, eh?

Well, we don't know! I openly admit it! However, what difference does math make if I accept a value for something else than you accept it for? It remains a superior form of reasoning either way.

As a matter of fact, even in base 1 (denoting the number by that many zeros) allows for better reasoning than philosophy. The gymnastics of the numbers is what is important, not the values of the numbers themselves.


As for the other book and topos I will have to return to it once my work load has decreased. There is so much out there at the moment I want to get to grips with an so little time. I really wouldn't recommend either book right now, but if you really want to read up on graph theory, then category theory (don't do it too in depth though), and conclude with topos theory (that's the best way for mathematics, the mathematical logical approach I would suggest the text Sheaves in Geometry and Logic).


Originally posted by "Quota 76 denial"@
I'm trying to help you realize yourself commiered. Or should I say trying to make you realize yourself as a "math equation". Is it possible in your math systems to negate yourself, or even better and more pragmatic never equal anything. You rely on analysis of math to define your esstential truth but in reality you never knew what is true. I mean i could argue that I respresent the same math solution as you do, but that would negate your existence. In the same respect that by calling you other than myself would give me cause to negate your existence. In both respects math would rationalize through language your exegenical telos on the world as possible nothingness. But this is not what you want, you gave yourself a name that was not associated with math your real name is not associated with a mathematical theorem but you reject the naming power to authenticate yourself through philosophic language. This might be the reason why Sartre equates the other with a draining vortex. We force what we want to be upon an others possibility, causing guilt. Of course you will rejct guilt too through math, and science but it is okay you will still feel guilt through names. Language is the single most important fact to mathematical existence but the logic of grammer is inherently metaphysical, like the rules for your math equations. This is exactly why I detest philosophy.

What difference would it make if any of this: a) made sense, or b) were false?

There is no truth, only justification (and consequently unjustification) and indetermination.


Tell me have you seen infinity? "Infinity is dead!"


"tunes"
Just to throw out my ideas about philosophy, I recommend reading Ludwig Wittgenstein(Philosophical Investigations). He basically says that problems of philosophy arise when we use words in isolation from their normal use, i.e., try to use metaphysics to account for physics, etc. Words are part of many language games that have specific rules; like chess, football, baseball, etc. Though all the games have some similar rules, no two games are exactly alike. This kind of analogy can be made to language. I've read Herr Wittgenstein, and I don't think too highly of him. He's an antinomy: an existential structuralist?

I dislike his work in logic, he still uses the dogma of "true and false". He's just not in my cup of tea.


Instead of dwelling on the goal of definite, perfectly mathematical, and precise answers to these questions, look at what the implications have in the real world. Instead of asking "what does this mean?", ask, "what is its use?". Well, I tend to agree the most with Marx (in the most pragmatic way possible). Wittgenstein came from a petit bourgeois family, and he remained petit bourgeois all his life. This just has some influence on his philosophy.

Worse, he tends to take apart a system into isolated fragments. A system is more than the sum of its parts, it is also the relation between the parts.

[tunes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 12:27 AM
Well, I tend to agree the most with Marx (in the most pragmatic way possible). Wittgenstein came from a petit bourgeois family, and he remained petit bourgeois all his life. This just has some influence on his philosophy.

How did this influence his work?


Worse, he tends to take apart a system into isolated fragments. A system is more than the sum of its parts, it is also the relation between the parts.

In his earliest work, the Tractatus, he broke things down to a point to try and show what we can and cannot talk about intelligently. This isn't the kind of Wittgenstein I was talking about - I dislike the tractatus for its almost unnecessary complexity, though I am no logician. If you've read Philosophical Investigations, which was published later, he actually critiques his previous work, and comes out with a more practical way to understand problems in language. Brilliant work.

[Hegemonicretribution]

But philosophy, as presented by the philosophers, is something more than this. It is beyond reality, more of a metaphysical analysis.

I grant this, at least in a reasonable (but not all) of cases that could be looked at.


There are those philosophers who consider themselves "beyond" those "other" philosophers, who think they are doing a credit to humanity with "applied" philosophy. The only "applied philosopher" who deserves credit for anything is Newton, and he's universally considered a scientist.

And that's what it boils down to: science and philosophy, the understandable and incoherent, the seekers of knowledge and knowledge of seekers.

To those philosophers that place themselves above; it happens in almost every discipline, it is obvious this isn't directly the case. There are arguments against all arguments more or less, hence why foundationalism blows.


But why would you use philosophy for something that pragmatic empiricism can do? Would we really need Cartesian dualism, or Hegelian dialectics, or whatever?

I wouldn't really, I would use philosophy for assessing the pragmatic empiricism. I started philosophy through the "classics" to some extent. Initially through Marx, and then some of the big hitters, I am currently slightly more interested in epistemology and philosophy of science, Popper and Kuhn and the likes. There is reasonable worth there. You may debate whether or not it is even "philosophy".


If one wanted to screw around with the conditions to see what would happen if this condition were true, or that condition were true, what difference does it make?

There is a danger of bad coherentism here though. It is logical that within a set of premises, the method of thinking must be contained within those bounds. Within this loop, you are correct, not much good can be attributed to questioning the loop. This questioning belongs outside this loop, and only there is it of major relevance.

I am sure you understand this argument well enough, but I will post a classic example for anyone reading this and unsure : Billy is smarter than Jenny because he is a boy, How do we know he is smarter? Because he said so. Why do we know that he is right even when Jenny says she is, because Billy is a boy and smarter.

This reasoning causes so many of the problems in the world. Maths and science is basically a stronger form of coherntism to some extent. Although within certain bounadries I admit aspects of philosophy are useless, if thruth is an aim, then philosophy still has its place, even if the thruth is non-existant, transitional, or simply outside of our comprehension.


That's tangential though. The point remains that once you accept math is the consequence of assigning values to symbols, nothing more, math becomes a smaller realm and thus easier (really easier).

That I do accept. I would be interested for an example of maths and the changing premise if you wouldn't mind. I am interested in all this, but still relatively new.


Well, we don't know! I openly admit it! However, what difference does math make if I accept a value for something else than you accept it for? It remains a superior form of reasoning either way.

I suppose my main argument has been presented with coherntism, however I don't see how you maintained maths as superior in that case at least, if we don't even know if this logic (fantastic within premises) is actually being used within those premises.


As a matter of fact, even in base 1 (denoting the number by that many zeros) allows for better reasoning than philosophy. The gymnastics of the numbers is what is important, not the values of the numbers themselves.

Philosophy is as gynastic as, well you would have to bring in arguments of the mind, limits of knowledge, and linguistics, but you see the point. As limitless as maths because it is an unconfined discipline.

Maybe I will leave the maths for a while, I have a lot of work at the moment. Thanks for the info anyway.

[ComradeRed]

Well, I think you, Hegemonicretribution, and I are beginning to agree on a number of issues with a few exceptions.



I suppose my main argument has been presented with coherntism, however I don't see how you maintained maths as superior in that case at least, if we don't even know if this logic (fantastic within premises) is actually being used within those premises. Thus metamathematics! This is where mathematical logic comes in, and explains a great deal of it all.


Philosophy is as gynastic as, well you would have to bring in arguments of the mind, limits of knowledge, and linguistics, but you see the point. As limitless as maths because it is an unconfined discipline. Ah, but with mathematics those gymnastics actually strengthen the reasoning ability of an individual. With philosophy, it is not necessarily so...it could practice the ability to use linguistic devices to confuse your adversary!

Mathematical rigor is the big difference. That makes math the superior form of reason.


Originally posted by "tunes"
How did this influence his work?As Marx once wrote "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas..."; my view, as a Marxist, is to thus not follow the bourgeois shepherds of the superstructure.

Rather, it is to criticize it. Being as lazy as I am, I just give up and criticize the entire field of philosophy.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Thus metamathematics! This is where mathematical logic comes in, and explains a great deal of it all.

Could you elaborate, I am not too familiar.


Ah, but with mathematics those gymnastics actually strengthen the reasoning ability of an individual. With philosophy, it is not necessarily so...it could practice the ability to use linguistic devices to confuse your adversary!

But again this requires the correctness of math. If for the purposes of this argument at least, you could assume maths to be false, then you would find that most of the arguments are self justifying.

Maths itself could well be seen as coherentist, and thus a problem arrives.


Rather, it is to criticize it. Being as lazy as I am, I just give up and criticize the entire field of philosophy.

That isn't a good attitude :P

[Nietzsche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 12:25 PM
I wish philosophy was more like an acid trip :P

Maybe its my engineering background but I simply can't get my head around this philosophy stuff. Even the economic aspects of Marx's work I can understand, with difficulty, but its like I'm banging my head against a brick wall whenever I try my hand at philosophy.
If you have a background in engineering then you should know a lot about philosophy by now. You just haven't identified it as such, yet. How do you know that a motor doesn't work? How do you find out. How can you be sure that it works? Why can you calculate something, then build a machine and see it work? Is it better to have a machine do the work or to do the work yourself? If you invent the machine, is it rightfully yours or was it just the right time? Do you have the moral duty to share it or are you allowed to keep it to yourself? Was this invention good? To be a philosopher at first means saying: "Fuck you!" to anyone trying to tell you: "Who are you to know?", which is a way of saying that a philosopher at heart is a man using reason, that is: his own reason, for he knows no other. Philosophy is a private thing. It's not the guy in the basement worrying about how many angels fit onto a needle. It's the guy who actually uses his mind to live on earth. The poor guy in the basement is a mystic who has yet to discover that an outside world actually exist and that it can kill him if he doesn't understand how it works.
I'm an engineer, too. And as far as I see it, an engineer needs an excellent philosophical training to do a good job.

[Quota 76 denial]

"Infinity is dead!"
how does that happen in mathematics? How did you get this notion of death comradered? How does something die in abstract math equations? How can you detest something? Where is the science in these statements? For all I see is emotion. And that seems more powerful than math. Philosophy has dedicated reason and metaphysics to describe these emotions where math has ultimately failed. Why are people insomniactic? why do people fall in love? what is determined and what is free? these are questions that trouble the philosopher. But in addition the philosopher asks why does 2+2=4 and not 5? tell me why math exceeds philosophy? Because it certainly does not exceed you're formulation of logic. what makes exterior to logic? What makes you apart from emotions?

[Magraheed]

I love philosophy and class my self as a philosopher, but to study philosophy is idiotic. Dont understand what i mean? Oh well it does not matter.


And yes it can make you miserable the deeper you look into things, but id rather be miserable than living in a comfort zone of lies.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Quota 76 denial+--> (Quota 76 denial)how does that happen in mathematics? How did you get this notion of death comradered? How does something die in abstract math equations? How can you detest something? Where is the science in these statements? For all I see is emotion. And that seems more powerful than math. Philosophy has dedicated reason and metaphysics to describe these emotions where math has ultimately failed. Why are people insomniactic? why do people fall in love? what is determined and what is free? these are questions that trouble the philosopher. But in addition the philosopher asks why does 2+2=4 and not 5? tell me why math exceeds philosophy? Because it certainly does not exceed you're formulation of logic. what makes exterior to logic? What makes you apart from emotions?[/b] It was a sarcastic reference to the philosophical crackpots Nietzsche and Hegel.


Originally posted by [email protected]

Could you elaborate, I am not too familiar. Metaphilosophy is the philosophy of philosophy. Metamathematics is the mathematics of mathematics.

Metamathematics is more concerned with how does one model something, what is the structure of a mathematical model, how does one prove something, and so on.


But again this requires the correctness of math. If for the purposes of this argument at least, you could assume maths to be false, then you would find that most of the arguments are self justifying. I think it was Einstein who once said the important part of geometry is not the geometry. It's the logic!

I think, quite confidantly, that the same can be said for programming today. But that's neither here nor there.

Euclidean geometry...the geometry they teach in high school (as opposed to something like Riemannian geometry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemannian+geometry))...is wrong. There is no such thing as a straight line, since we live on a curved surface. Try looking at the globe's longitude, they are parallel but meet at the north/south poles!

We can empirically see Euclidean Geometry is wrong. But it is still important!



That isn't a good attitude :P Why waste energy doing something that results in nothing useful? Science on the other hand can actually help people. That's what I have learned at least...


Nietzsche
If you have a background in engineering then you should know a lot about philosophy by now. You just haven't identified it as such, yet. How do you know that a motor doesn't work? How do you find out. How can you be sure that it works? Why can you calculate something, then build a machine and see it work? Is it better to have a machine do the work or to do the work yourself? If you invent the machine, is it rightfully yours or was it just the right time? Do you have the moral duty to share it or are you allowed to keep it to yourself? Was this invention good? To be a philosopher at first means saying: "Fuck you!" to anyone trying to tell you: "Who are you to know?", which is a way of saying that a philosopher at heart is a man using reason, that is: his own reason, for he knows no other. Philosophy is a private thing. It's not the guy in the basement worrying about how many angels fit onto a needle. It's the guy who actually uses his mind to live on earth. The poor guy in the basement is a mystic who has yet to discover that an outside world actually exist and that it can kill him if he doesn't understand how it works. Geez, this sounds like the speech from a dreary randroid book.

[redchrisfalling]

Philosophy dose not make you miserbale.

It can make you miserbale but that is a personal choice. For example: existentialism. It basicly states that everything is meaningless. Material possesions, words, emotions, actions, all meaningless. Once you wrap your head around that you have two options, 1, you can dwell on the fact that life has no meaning and be miserable. Or you can choise what has meaning to you. I find it very liberateing that the most meaningful thing in the world is my friends and there happiness. Its knid of the whole optimist pesimist thing again. As for studying philosophy in school it all depends on the aproach your teacher takes. In my school it is pretty much an open debate. This is highly enjoyable because i am an optimistic anarchist and the only other semi inteligant voice in the room is an cynical pesimistic communist. So we chase each other round and round in circles, the rest of the class is dumbfounded and we each get 100% in the class. Other profs will make you read books and write reports but right now i'm loveing my philosophy class.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 12:53 AM
Metamathematics is the mathematics of mathematics.

Metamathematics is more concerned with how does one model something, what is the structure of a mathematical model, how does one prove something, and so on.

I was aware of what it was, but not anything about it other than that. Could you explain an argument to me?


We can empirically see Euclidean Geometry is wrong. But it is still important!
I agree. I use maths, and as tool for reasoning it is benificial also. I just have issues with it. First of all I see it a language to describe things, that is all. But what I think I was saying here (long time ago) was along the lines of: maths is not infallible, or is not absolute in application. When not in application it is a language only, an important one but that is it.


Why waste energy doing something that results in nothing useful? Science on the other hand can actually help people. That's what I have learned at least...
It is something I, and others have benifited from. Even if it didn't do anything that you take as important, what is wrong with this exercise? You were saying how a wrong geomotry was important a minute ago.

[ComradeRed]

I was aware of what it was, but not anything about it other than that. Could you explain an argument to me? An argument is essentially a collection of statements, and how good an argument is is dependent on the logical flow of the argument.

It is a collection of propositions and the underlying notions.


But what I think I was saying here (long time ago) was along the lines of: maths is not infallible, or is not absolute in application. When not in application it is a language only, an important one but that is it. Math is a priori. Of course it won't add anything to human knowledge by studying it alone.

That's just too Hegelian! "All that is rational is real and all that is real is rational." :lol:



It is something I, and others have benifited from. Even if it didn't do anything that you take as important, what is wrong with this exercise? You were saying how a wrong geomotry was important a minute ago. True, a wrong geometry is important. However, geometry (wrong or right) has well defined rules and is well formed (wff). In philosophy "anything goes".

So comparing math and philosophy is like boxing and street fighting; on the one hand you have formal rules, and the other you have a free for all where anything goes.

That is why one is considered a sport and the other a crime.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 05:21 AM

An argument is essentially a collection of statements, and how good an argument is is dependent on the logical flow of the argument. It is a collection of propositions and the underlying notions.



I think I just got cut by your wit ;) ouch. Seriously though, what I meant was if you could guide me through a specific metamathematical argument.


That's just too Hegelian! "All that is rational is real and all that is real is rational." :lol:
I think we both kind of agreed on what maths was. Even if you draw conclusions from what you think my understanding of it was. I might be vague at times, but I am not yet an Hegelian.


So comparing math and philosophy is like boxing and street fighting; on the one hand you have formal rules, and the other you have a free for all where anything goes.
Often within the limits of our own language. Even when we recreate language around philosophy it is still not essentially completely free. There are as many expressions to be made through math, as through language.

There are boundries within which philosophy exists, you said you think of it as the classical fields: well according to this it is limitted to these fields. Regardless t s not completely free.

If working within in a field with defined boundries (even if the field does not reflect "reality") is benificial, then why is it not benificial to experiment in a looser field? Allowing the mind freedom to wander, even if not directly productive, does improve powers of reasoning, as well as satisfying an intellectual need.