The only way forward is to write for an imagined kindred spirit, which will have the secondary effect of alienating a wider audience. — Joshs
The supposition here is that there is a something that is the real meaning of Wittgenstein's work, that we might try to understand. — Banno
I should not like my writing to spare other people the trouble of thinking.
No one can think a thought for me in the way that no one can don my hat for me.
Work on philosophy -- like work in architecture in many respects -- is really more work on oneself. On one's own interpretation. On how one sees things. (And what one expects of them.) (Culture and Value)
Thanks. My question was about the sense in which a domain, such as the domain of natural numbers, is real, but not phenomenally existent. I notice that nowadays it is commonplace to say of anything considered real that it must be 'out there somewhere' - but even though such a domain is not anywhere, it is nevertheless real. See this passage. — Wayfarer
Cunningham had unwittingly re-ignited a very ancient and unresolved debate in the philosophy of science. What, exactly, is math? Is it invented, or discovered? And are the things that mathematicians work with—numbers, algebraic equations, geometry, theorems and so on—real?
Philosophy is concerned with what was said or printed or argued in the past — jgill
Not in my view, obviously, but I won't try and persuade you — Wayfarer
Jesus. No disrespect, but if this is all you could say about philosophy, then you don't fit in philosophy. People who summarize the thousands of philosophical posts in forums like this with a statement such as above, has not learned anything but cliché.Over two millennia have passed with no consensus. — jgill
That is what I would describe as a jaundiced view — Wayfarer
Over two millennia have passed with no consensus. — jgill
Jesus. No disrespect, but if this is all you could say about philosophy, then you don't fit in philosophy — L'éléphant
So, are you saying you did not get the gist of what I just said? Do you really need me to explain to you what I said in english? There are things you could say with depth about the subject besides "Over two millennia have passed with no consensus".So, you are saying there has been consensus about the reality of numbers and whether math is created or discovered? — jgill
Other scholars—especially those working in other branches of science—view Platonism with skepticism. Scientists tend to be empiricists; they imagine the universe to be made up of things we can touch and taste and so on; things we can learn about through observation and experiment. The idea of something existing “outside of space and time” makes empiricists nervous: It sounds embarrassingly like the way religious believers talk about God, and God was banished from respectable scientific discourse a long time ago.
Platonism, as mathematician Brian Davies has put it, “has more in common with mystical religions than it does with modern science.” The fear is that if mathematicians give Plato an inch, he’ll take a mile. If the truth of mathematical statements can be confirmed just by thinking about them, then why not ethical problems, or even religious questions? Why bother with empiricism at all?
Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York, was initially attracted to Platonism—but has since come to see it as problematic. If something doesn’t have a physical existence, he asks, then what kind of existence could it possibly have? “If one ‘goes Platonic’ with math,” writes Pigliucci, empiricism “goes out the window.” (If the proof of the Pythagorean theorem exists outside of space and time, why not the “golden rule,” or even the divinity of Jesus Christ?)
The study of mathematics is not the same as the study of philosophy — L'éléphant
Do you really need me to explain to you what I said in english? There are things you could say with depth about the subject besides "Over two millennia have passed with no consensus". — L'éléphant
No. I meant to say "with depth" -- meaning, with deeper understanding than the lack of careful thought on your part by saying over 2 millennia and no consensus. Not "in depth" where one demonstrates a comprehensive knowledge of something, such as you and the two hundred theorems you proved.said in depth — jgill
Wrong again. I did not say this. Consensus is not a hindrance to philosophy, but if this is what you think is the pièce de résistance in philosophy; then you've missed the mark by a mile.but from what you say a hindrance to philosophy. — jgill
The issue of the "reality" of mathematical objects. Over two millennia have passed with no consensus. When we speak of Platonism isn't that something from ancient times? — jgill
There are various reasons why an author might be or seem to be deliberately obscure. But there is a difference between an obscure writing style and deliberately hiding something. — Fooloso4
If you have a room which you do not want certain people to get into, put a lock on it for which they do not have the key.
I take putting a lock on the room that they do not have the key to to be a deliberate act.
It is not that he selects the reader but that the readers are self-selective, they are able to understand it or not. It is for the benefit of these readers who cannot that certain things are kept from them — Fooloso4
the inability of many readers — Joshs
I think that it is a mistake to assume he is deliberately hiding something. — Joshs
The book must automatically separate those who understand it from those who do not.
Even the foreword is written just for those who understand the book.
Telling someone something he does not understand is pointless, even if you add that he will not be able to understand it.
The honorable thing to do is to put a lock on the door which will be noticed only by those who can open it, not by the rest.
A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that’s unlocked and opens inwards, as long as it doesn’t occur to him to pull rather than push.
No. I meant to say "with depth" — L'éléphant
I really do not believe that thoughts are even similar to material objects which I also call "things". With talk like this, we create an environment where ambiguity and equivocation are highly probable — Metaphysician Undercover
When Wittgenstein says, as quoted above, that he has been frequently misunderstood, it is clear that there is something that he means, otherwise there could be no misunderstanding. — Fooloso4
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.