Are mathematics vital (or at least Important) to understanding philosophy and knowing the truth?Discuss
P.S By truth is meant knowledge that could be characterised at fact
A strong knowledge of math and statistic are imperative to an objective perspective on philosophy
It shouldn't all be objective but you need to have a strong consideration for objectivity or else you will be producing sheer opinions
>>425728
Thank you for your contribution to tbe discussion but could you enlighten us with regard to your opinion?
>>425702
>are
No you dumbass. Mathematics studies completely different things than philosophy, of course it's not vital to understand maths if you're not going to study maths. What kind of retarded question is this?
Which philosophy? For the Philosophy of Math, yes.
>>425702
Yes. If you don't know the basics of mathematical reasoning, you have no business studying the humanities.
The only reason postmodernism insanity continues to exist is because we allowed uneducated dumbasses to enter academia.
>>426361
Name a Canon work of Philosophy that requires an educated (as in, at least undergraduate level) mathematical knowledge to understand that isn't a work of Philosophy of Math.
You're talking out of your arse.
>there are people reading philosophical and logical texts who have never read The Elements by Euclid.
>>426383
Mathematical proofs help with logical reasoning.
Has to do with language, linguistics really, and how it is used in Philosophy.
>>426383
Don't engage with the retard memer.
>these retards
This is a trick question because the entire basis of philosophy is mathematical you fucking morons
Confirmed for redditlosophers who read a wiki page on it
>>426383
It's not about the theorems but the reasoning process and mathematical maturity that comes with it.
>P.S By truth is meant knowledge that could be characterised at fact
what is knowledge?
>>426398
What is the basis of philosophy? How do you define philosophy?
>>426391
you know what would help even more? studying logic
>>426418
>le epic questioning everything man
The basis of philosophy is logic
and logic is mathematical
It is a foundational element and if you don't get it you need to gtfo
>>426414
And Logic is of Mathematics
>>426403
You never do much more than babies' first truth tables in philosophy. You need more practice to get good at it.
>>425719
>knowledge of math and statistic are imperative to an objective perspective on philosophy
LET NO ONE IGNORANT OF GEOMETRY ENTER HERE
>>426387
this
>>426418
>define philosophy
The literal translation of philosophy is 'Love of Wisdom" from philio- which is love, and sophia- which is wisdom.
you fucking pleb
>>426426
Don't act so immature; talk properly, not in memes.
Answer the questions anyway. There is no use in saying X is the base of Y if you can't even say what Y is or what Y is for.
>>426427
Logic is the study of proper reasoning.
Mathematical Logic is of mathematics. Aristotlean Logic and Formal are not.
>>426440
Read the discussion before shitting yourself.
I asked for a definition of Philosophy to understand his position.
If one says philosophy is just the love of wisdom, then how is the 'basis' of that mathematics?
>>425702
The philosophy and mathematics has a relationship.
For example: infinity is a philosophical thing, they can not be proved by test.
>>426441
>Aristotlean Logic
And this is why the Humanities are dying.
>>426452
Aristotlean Logic isn't as useful as Formal, but it is still a valid system.
>>426447
>If philosophy is the love of wisdom, than how is the 'basis' of that mathematics?
Do you know what Reason is and how it is related to Truth?
>>426441
>it doesn't have numbers so it ain't math!!
>>426477
>I don't believe there's a universal definition of Truth
>lol what is reasoning and this is how it is subjective guize
>>426477
That is not how it works. Logic is an abstraction of mathematic principles that are universal and eternal, a layer above it. Math doesn't "need" logic, logic is derived from math.
>>426483
Who are you quoting? Use your speaking words.
>>426433
How stupid you must be to think logic is the same as a discrete maths course
>>426487
Which principles of Mathematics?
"The fact that all Mathematics is Symbolic Logic is one of the greatest discoveries of our age; and when this fact has been established, the remainder of the principles of mathematics consists in the analysis of Symbolic Logic itself" - Ironically, from Russell's Principles of Mathematics
>>426502
That is his argument, not a fact, and it was very controversial because it's hardly true.
>>426511
I know it's an argument; I posted it as I found it humorous.
I'm off now anyway, it's been fun, see ya later alligator
>>426487
You're kidding right? Mathematical ideas wouldn't exist with proof and logic.
JUST
>>426487
go ahead and prove that 1+1 is 2 without using logic.
>>426533
You use math to prove things. Universal laws and axioms. You build from there. From 1 + 1 = 2 and onward.
>>426542
No. You use logic to prove things. What a stupid thing to say
I'm starting to doubt whether you've any mathematical education at all
>>426542
>axioms
That's logic you fucking undergrad.
>>425702
No, absolutely not.
Even logic is optional.
>>426561
I'd like to see you understand Plato's Apology without a scholary understanding of the semantics of predicate Logic.
>>426557
>>426550
It is derived for mathematical law that is eternal and has always existed. We don't create math, we discover it. You can use logic to expand that but at the very core of it reasoning is human while math is a universal property and we would have nowhere to go with logic if math didn't exist first.
>>426577
>math is a universal property
logic is a universal property
>we would have nowhere to go with logic if math didn't exist first
we would have nowhere to go with math if logic didn't exist first
>We don't create math, we discover it
We don't create logic, we discover it.
>>426577
>We don't create math, we discover it.
So you have no idea what you're talking about. Glad we cleared that up.
>>426611
>retard that has no idea how mathematics is practiced is making claims about philosophy of mathematics
>calls others a joke while enbarrassing himself
>>426611
>reasons why faggots fag faggots fagging faggy fags
>>426611
Great contribution to the discussion friendo.
>>426611
>neo-philosophy
>>426623
>this is a greentext
This thread:
>WE WUZ MATH AND SHET
>>426593
I mean, he's right. Geometrical relations are divined, in a way, from a general theoretical reasoning of the material world and basic planar concepts.
Plato understood Geometrical reasoning to be just under 'The Good' and just over architecture and various other material applications in his hierarchy of enlightenment.
>>426917
And I suppose you think the Euclidean axioms are divined as well? Fucking dumbass, formalisation is a purely human endeavor.
>>425719
>A strong knowledge of math and statistic are imperative to an objective perspective on philosophy
Y tho?
>>426985
>formalisation is a purely human endeavor.
Not the guy you replied to, but regardless, there are varying degrees of mathematical platonism, some thinking that the ZFC or ZF axioms were essentially gifts from god or that they exist as some sort of intrinsic property of the universe, and humans just discovered them and do math with them. This isn't even a fringe viewpoint among those mathematicians that care (who are few and far between). There are other philosophical viewpoints in mathematics as well, but the point is that "inventing" and "discovering" math are both acceptable, although most descriptive might be "doing" math.
As set theory gets less and less relevant in mathematics and we exchange them for more powerful-but-equivalent languages and constructions, we're probably going to see a shift away from platonism, over to more agnostic beliefs.
t. Math grad student
>>425702
>Are mathematics vital (or at least Important) to understanding philosophy
Other way around. If we're talking analyticals.
>knowing the truth
JTB seems to have problems.
>By truth is meant knowledge that could be characterised at fact
Nope, that's empirical, not true.
>>427103
How can they be gifts from god if they're so flawed? Many millenium prize problems have been proven to be independent from ZFC, so how can this "gift from god" be unable to answer our questions?
Also what are you studying? I'm in mathematical physics.
>>425770
Not that guy but come on. Do I really need a strong understanding of statistics to have a firm grasp of philosophy? So every philosopher before Bayes is irrelavant?
>>426387
So what?
>>426427
But if logic is grounded in mathematics, then mathematics can't be grounded in logic, because then logic would be grounded in itself, which is just incoherant (what does it even mean for something to ground itself?). Therefore, that mathematics is not grounded in logic follows from your premise.
>>426454
Aristotelian logic is a part of formal logic. Formal logic doesn't just mean logic with symbols, rather it refers to the study of the forms of arguments, as opposed to their contents.
>>426917
A Kantian would probably disagree. They might say that, since space is an aspect of the *form* of our experiences, rather than our experiences themselves, principles governing space (i.e. geometical principles) can be known entirely a priori.
>>427942
>confirmed for not even knowing basic logic
>>428015
>Formal logic = Standard Predicate Logic
Boy have I got some bad news for you.
>>428015
>The Syllogistic is not formal logic
But we can take Aritotle's asertoric syllogistic as a fragment of the 1st order predicate calculus. If the syllogistic ain't formal logic then neither is that fragment.
>>428030
Who said anything about 1st order logic?
>>428059
Nobody did. higher-order predicate logic is still predicate logic. But the image posted is using a very limited sense of the term 'formal logic'. For one thing, modal logic isn't included, yet is still formal logic. And in the same way, Aristotelian logic is still formal logic. Also for the reason stated by this guy >>428039.
>>426487
Hold on. Logic comes before mathematics. You can use mathematics to prove logical conclusions in the same way you can use the scientific method to prove obvious observations, such as fire emits heat. But they are not necessary. The scientific method analogy may be a bad example, but it proves my point. Mathematics is a child of logic, as the scientific method is a child of observation.
>>427682
>How can they be gifts from god if they're so flawed?
I wouldn't know, because I don't do that much philosophy. I think that in the mid-20th Century (or at least when my Foundations of Mathematics textbook was written, lol), the author and his school were very excited and convinced that set theory as we know it now was going to be the "right" theory for describing mathematics. Now we know of "better" theories, like Stone spaces (in particular), that do the same thing, but don't necessarily admit some of the problematic aspects of classical mathematics. Now, keep in mind also that ZFC was only an example. Some people might think that certain aspects of the theory of Stone spaces, or certain aspects of Category theory are god-given. In my opinion, there's no real reason to pin down the specific right "god given facts," I think that one either believes in them, or doesn't.
Now, I don't know of any millenium prize problems that have been proven to be independent of the ZFC axioms, but if your issue is that ZFC is not complete, neither is any other foundational theory in which one might reasonably construct mathematics as we know it, so that kind of puts to bed (at least for me) the ZFC issue. For those who only like ZF, my usual response is "then where's my Tychonoff theorem?"
I study algebraic geometry, right now my research is focused on computing the Betti numbers of a class of complex variety (which is why I'm not a big philosophy buff). Nice to see a fellow STEMfag on /his/.
>>427922
>So every philosopher before Bayes is irrelavant?
That's not an argument, you're supposed to actualize your knowledge. If I say you're supposed to know about Kant if you pretend to understand philosophy, would you say "So every philosopher before Kant was irrelevant?"
It's fine to not be up to date if you're a hobbyist, but don't claim understanding.
>>425702
define knowledge and fact
If you really love knowledge there's no reason to live in fear of mathematics or philosophy.
>>428398
>Category theory
>abstract nonsense
>god-given
Kek'd. Though this sounds like how ancient composers/philosophers attributing flashes of ideas to god-given inspiration.
Algebraic geometry is sweet; though I'm studying symplectic manifolds, so the only contact I have with Betti numbers is through differential topology and the Atiyah-Singer index theorem. It's good to see someone who actually knows what he's talking about in these threads.
>>428412
Okay, but there's a differance in saying that one has to understand Kant if they want to be a philosopher today (i.e. to be up-to-date with the field as it is now), and saying that an understanding of Kant is necessary to understand philosophy, period. The latter would imply that the predecessors of Kant, who could not have read Kant's works, did not have an understanding of philosophy.
But that's besides the point, even if you confine yourself to talking about an understanding of philosphy as it is today, I would still contend that an understanding statistics is not necessary, since there are tons of areas and problems in contemporary philosophy that do not even touch on statistics (and for which statistical methods provide no help in solving). For an arbitrary example: modern discussions about the existence of universals.
