To make your point would require some sort of poll of mathematicians asking "Are the Foundations of Mathematics important to you as you pursue your explorations into your specialties?" I'm betting most of my colleagues — jgill
LINUX is obsolete (Jan 29, 1992)
Torvalds: You use this [being a professor] as an excuse for the limitations of minix? ... your job is being a professor and researcher: That's one hell of a good excuse for some of the brain-damages of minix.
Tanenbaum: Writing a new OS only for the 386 in 1991 gets you your second 'F' for this term. But if you do real well on the final exam, you can still pass the course.
Mathematics does not have direct practical applications, mostly by design so. That is often a good thing, but it also means that the academic consensus has much more weight than it would have, if there were practical applications — Tarskian
There's just the mutually back-patting consensus, or else meaningless grades on a collection of otherwise irrelevant tests and exams, or even the eternally back-patting citation carousel. That is why I have personally never treated and will never treat philosophy or mathematics as more than just hobbies — Tarskian
In fact, it would also be interesting to elaborate why exactly your example sentence is not philosophical. — Tarskian
philosophy is a mathematical capability of the language at hand. — Tarskian
(Which is not to say I don't believe there is a 'crisis in philosophy' - I have on my desk Edmund Husserl's The Crisis of the European Sciences, published after his death, and composed mainly in the 1920's and 30's. — Wayfarer
My definition begins with the word itself: philo (love) sophia (wisdom), philo-sophia, 'love~wisdom'. What that means, how to realise it. — Wayfarer
? We tend to gravitate to the philosophical ideas that match our personality and inclinations. — Tom Storm
The other point I would definitely include is ‘some reference to the canonical texts of the philosophical tradition’. This thread, for instance, contains none. — Wayfarer
The other point I would definitely include is ‘some reference to the canonical texts of the philosophical tradition’. This thread, for instance, contains none. — Wayfarer
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy
Unix philosophy
The Unix philosophy, originated by Ken Thompson, is a set of cultural norms and philosophical approaches to minimalist, modular software development. It is based on the experience of leading developers of the Unix operating system.
It is naive to believe that by merely studying the old masters, you will be able to make a relevant contribution to the world of philosophy as it exists today. Instead, you will find yourself mostly divorced from the contemporary discourse. — Tarskian
.Something I will call out, is the inherent tendency of moderns to ‘historical presentism’ - that what we know now, what with science being so powerful, renders much or even all of pre-modern philosophy archaic and superseded. There is an element of truth insofar as factual matters are concerned, but in respect of questions of meaning and the nature of lived existence, the border isn’t at all clear-cut. — Wayfarer
Accountancy companies and engineering firms might have philosophies concerning how they do business but that doesn’t necessarily mean they have wider application outside their spheres. — Wayfarer
func f(n) { part1(n); part2(n); }
if n=n0 then return f0;
And by the philosophical canon I don’t just mean ancient philosophy, there are many interesting current philosophers. — Wayfarer
The definition that I propose, is actually not particularly new. It is quite close to thinking about thinking:
Overgaard, Gilbert & Burwood 2013, pp. 36–37, 43, What Is Philosophy?
Nuttall 2013, p. 12, 1. The Nature of Philosophy — Tarskian
"Thinking about thinking" and "statements about other statements" are notions that are very close to each other. — Tarskian
That is why I have personally never treated and will never treat philosophy or mathematics as more than just hobbies. — Tarskian
Kant did not. — Tarskian
The other point I would definitely include is ‘some reference to the canonical texts of the philosophical tradition’. This thread, for instance, contains none. — Wayfarer
That is indeed a big problem. In practice, you will find yourself looking at the philosophical canon. Those books will at least make it much easier to talk to other philosophers.Yes, the tradition is important. The hard part is determining which parts to privilege and study. — Tom Storm
The link is hereThe literary canon, theorists contend, is a selection of reputable works that abstracts their value for specific purposes: to safeguard them from neglect or censure, reproduce social and institutional values, maintain them as exemplary in the formation of personal or communal identities, or objectify and enshrine standards of judgment. .... The discourse of canonicity thus relies on an economy of belief about the possibility and validity of agreement about literary value. Within this economy, the canon, in whichever composition, is both the evidence and the outcome of agreement, without which value would seemingly become entirely speculative. ..... A work may be treated as a reference point, a familiar and influential text whose contribution to culture is measured relative to one context. — Canon and Classic | Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Literature
Oh, that is a big problem, which is exacerbated by the academic idea that you have to read everything in order to understand anything. In practice, people read the stuff that the people they are talking to read. Going beyond that is pretty much a question of happenstance (or, these days, what comes up in the first page or two of a web search). But that's all right. Sometimes, you find something new and interesting.And there's always the nagging feeling that there may well have been one or two thinkers along the way who might have allowed us to dispense with some of what came before them. — Tom Storm
That opinion depends on which parts of contemporary discourse you happen to be reading. There is a good deal of contemporary discourse about a good many of the old masters. Collectively, they set the context of contemporary discussion. Every few years, someone comes along who thinks they have overturned everything that went before. Its part of the tradition. It never works. At best, the revolutionaries add a new strand to the complex web that we know and, sometimes, love.It is naïve to believe that by merely studying the old masters, you will be able to make a relevant contribution to the world of philosophy as it exists today. Instead, you will find yourself mostly divorced from the contemporary discourse. — Tarskian
Of course he gets things wrong. Everyone gets things wrong. But Kant gets thing wrong in interesting ways. That's what keeps philosophy going.For example, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is a long-winding text that rarely commits to anything actionable, but when it very occasionally does, it turns out to be wrong. — Tarskian
Simple definitions. Work is what you have to do. Hobbies are what make life worth living.That is why I have personally never treated and will never treat philosophy or mathematics as more than just hobbies. — Tarskian
Me if I abused philosophical literature, searched for the first thing that somewhat agreed with my sophomoric redefinition, didn't read the rest, and decided to quote it even though the person being quoted would disagree with me. — Lionino
Of course, you can't do either of them at all. — Lionino
Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is a long-winding text that rarely commits to anything actionable, but when it very occasionally does, it turns out to be wrong. — Tarskian
Successfully arguing a point by using partial functions, is hard — Tarskian
Every few years, someone comes along who thinks they have overturned everything that went before. Its part of the tradition. It never works. — Ludwig V
Well, you seem to be accepting that the classics (or at least some of them) are a starting-point.The better starting point is not necessarily the classics. — Tarskian
So when you cite Popper, you do not think that his text is a classic. But what you say about it tells me that you think it is a classic, or at least ought to be a classic.I don't know if Popper overturned everything that went before. Was there even anything that went before, so to speak of? — Tarskian
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.