Hello /his/,
mathematician here.
Why is philosophy written in such unclear language? The most ideas are pretty easy but it is hard as fuck to read all those shit texts.
>>872376
Everybody wants to coin their own special terms, to come up with clever turn-of-phrases.
>>872376
That's why I like Hegel. Simple and a joy to read.
>>872376
Philosophy deals with the broadest concepts, most words we have are to deal with specialized and specific things.
Philosophy also is about introducing new ideas. Since these ideas have never been expressed in language before you either have to invent new words or use previous words in ways unheard before.
I don't think it is possible for anyone to understand philosophy without strong abstract thinking, escpially 20th centuary and above philosophy: at least with the ancient stuff their lingo and concepts may have seeped into the main stream, newer philosophy is still treading new grounds.
>>872376
Philosophy is simply empty rhetoric. Just ignore it, it serves no use beyond pseudo-intellectual masturbation.
>>872376
Read Wittgenstein's Tractatus.
It's a parallel to a reality that's often unclear
>>872376
Programmer here.
What are you finding unclear or difficult?
>>872376
Academic philosophy is written in an immensely clear fashion once you've acclimatised to the jargon and rigid structure of it.
Pre-20th century philosophy and modern pseudo philosophy isn't. The problem is that this is what most people think of when they hear the word philosophy.
>>872376
The ability to perceive a philosophical insight is so difficult in the first place, as there is no word to express what you are trying to say. If you're reading classic texts and found that you can grasp the general gist of it, it's because the benefit for existing in the present. For example, when reading Plato's text the first time, you'd find why he bothered to write it in a pretentious way. However, once you know that he's just utilizing 'criteria', 'perception', and so forth, it becomes much easier, as you now know how primitive their understanding are back then.
By the way, OP. What are your field of expertise? So you want to do philosophy of mathematics or something?
>>872376
Philosophy is actually written in a very clear language. You just need to understand what each of the words mean, and they are all defined.
Similar to how in math, you have lots of global symbol and variables, so too does philosophy. Philosophers do not like undefined variables. Its all defined, if you lack clarity, you just ask someone to define it for you. At all levels, definition of concept is a must for philosophy, else you get retarded shits.
Read Epictetus's Discourses (before that read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Stoicism).
It uses very clear language, the ideas are deeper than they look at a first instance, it is very useful and so on.
This will make you appreciate philosophy more and maybe get you to try to learn more of it.
>>872454
this
>>872532
Tracteus is probably a terrible place to start. The central premise of it, Atomic facts, were refuted by Wittgenstein himself.
Why would you ask someone to read a book that largely contains ideas considered refuted by the general field? PI is much more relevant.
>>872376
FUCK HEIDEGGER YOU FUCKER
>>872376
This has admittedly been philosophy's disease since at least Hegel. Many philosophers just get the idea that their ideas have to be dense and packed, because it's their concept that matters.
Simply put, philosophers don't really write with their reader in mind, and it's really undermined it's importance in today's ADHD world.
I think you'll like La Rochefoucauld though, he basically perfected the maxim, or basically short form philosophy. Maybe Nietzsche to an extent too I guess.
Philosophy survives by being deliberately vague so as to have plausible deniability against investigation.
>>872545
Heidegger is vastly more understandable than Hegel for example.
At least I think so.
>>873006
Investigation by whom?
Who was the person 'investigating' Plato?
If you are talking about 'investagation' by someone with no training in philosophy no one cares about that. In the same way that no one is going to car when someone with no background in history declares the holocaust never happened.
>>872541
>Why would you ask someone to read a book that largely contains ideas considered refuted by the general field?
Because that is true for every single work ever discussed in your typical philosophy curriculum?
Because there is no "wrong-free" kosher book to get anyone started with?
Because the Tractatus is philosophy written in a way that even the functionally illiterate STEMfags can digest?
>>873079
>Because the Tractatus is philosophy written in a way that even the functionally illiterate STEMfags can digest?
And than the STEMfag has to find out that this has nothing to do with the greater scope of the field. It's like you are setting them up to be dumb positivist posters.
>Because that is true for every single work ever discussed in your typical philosophy curriculum?
It's generally understood that certain ideas from one philosophy transfer into newer ones. While very few philosophers are will say Plato was right about forms, the ideas expressed are still going to be relevant for any sort of concept related to idealism. Tractus represents an idea that was just a philosophical dead end, even the guy that wrote dismissed the core concept in his later work.
If you wanted to show STEMfag something up his alley Spinoza's ethics has more relevance or hell Philosophical Investigation is more alive. Although there is nothing wrong with starting with the Greeks, Platonic dialogues are some of the easiest reads ever.
>>872376
I imagine the same reason legalize exists.
To keep lawyers in business.
>>872376
>mathematician here
Oh really. What do you study?
>>874293
AG
>>876593
anime girls?
>>873079
Too bad it's autistic trash
>>876593
Algebraic geometry? You doing sheaves or what?
>>876925
sheaves are basically how you build up modern algebraic geometry. AG is cool since it is rigid enough that you can enumerate structures easily while also being "expressive" enough
>>876937
Yeah that is way too vague. I know a bit about pre-Groedendieck algebraic geometry so could you explain how sheaves relate to, say, affine varieties?
>>872376
What did you read?
>>872376
>Why is philosophy written in such unclear language? The most ideas are pretty easy but it is hard as fuck to read all those shit texts.
it is to make people believe that the mathematician is smarter.
>>872403
>I don't think it is possible for anyone to understand philosophy without strong abstract thinking
He says to the mathematician. Are you retarded?
>>872389
Chortled heartily in real life.
>>872376
Sometimes it is written uncearly, but what reading philosophy mostly has to do with is reading ability, logic ability, and philosophic knowledge.
Relevant
>>872454
This is the most clear-cut philosophy you can ever find.
Additionally, if you read other philosophers in the Analytic tradition many of them use symbolic logic to express their ideas in a concise manner.
>>873006
Why are you on this board senpai?
>>873071
Thank you for saying what needs to be said to a comment like that.
Philosophy is written by and for humans. Mathematicians are not humans, just meat computers.
>>880115
Philosophers are not humans, just meat thinkers.
>>880115
>this is what humfags think
Jesus Christ it's like I'm in grade school again
>>880127
>butthurt robot
You mad that you can't comprehend anything that doesn't have a rigid set of rules?
>>880161
And I wonder who makes those rules, certainly not mathematicians, right?
Lmao faggot
>>880169
>the robot lacks reading comprehension
Not surprising. Do you need me to write my posts in binary, or would you prefer hexadecimal?
>>880184
>doesn't understand math is more than formalization
Fucking retard lmao
>>880193
>keeps proving that he has the reading comprehension is of google translate
>>880135
At $6, he analyzed the mystical lel
Witt is more 'classic' than what he seems.
>>880215
>doesn't underatand what people are saying
Nice bait lmao. This is why no one takes philfags seriously
>>878926
>>He says to the mathematician. Are you retarded?
no. mathematicians cannot think outside the box of their choice of rules of inference.
math is good if you need help to think. Once you go outside your formal logic, you must know what you want and mathematicians become lost, since they never reflected on what they want.
1. Anglo tradition/analytics are easy to read.
2. Continentals are readable with effort.
3. Except the French. Stay clear of the French.
4. You are not a mathematician. You are at best an undergraduate math major. No mathfag would say what you said. Best mathfag I knew was obsessed with Heidegger.
>>880115
You're not even good at philosophy.
Philosophy and Mathematics are brother fields.
>>880255
Most people that want to say philosophy sucks and is in competition with math or science do not understand philosophy or sciences. It's a result of the shallow understanding of science that comes from the pop-sci culture, which tries to promote science and math as mystical fields that conjure absolute knowledge from thin air rather than being interconnected and thus dependent on the other fields.
>>872376
There is absolutely nothing difficult or incomprehensible, when it comes to philosophy.
Except, of course, if it is designed with the specific purpose of being incomprehensible. What, by the way, it is very common, since that brainless "philosopher" of Jena began to mask his mental sterility with hermetic, complicated and meaningless texts.
It also has that atrocious fashion of "postmodernism", which is just a painful disguise for victims of prion infections that still want to sell books and give lectures.
>>872376
Half of the time is about capturing the precise meaning, the other half if about being obtuse as shit.
If they write in a clear language people might notice that they're full of it and begin to question why we pay them a salary...
>>880312
>There is absolutely nothing difficult or incomprehensible, when it comes to philosophy.
This desu. Unless you are mentally challenged (like a lot of high schoolers are) you should find philosophy intuitive.
It keeps philosophy out of the hands of peasants, so it's a good thing its written like that.
t. traditionalist
>>880135
It's more about its use of language
It's a good work for someone transitioning from a field like mathematics towards the sort of language used in the analytical tradition in general
>>880235
I smell inferiority complex
>>880235
You have no idea how actual mathematical research is carried out. The whole point is to formally show that a pattern you percieve has a deeper meaning by describing it with a mathematical structure.
Math is not formal logic.
>>881837
Mathematicians do not know why they cling to their formalizations. They cannot answer why mathematics matter, why we should listen to them, why their personal structures and deductions matter.
>>872376
>Why is philosophy written in such unclear language?
Because it's not written for you, but for other philosophers.
Some philosophical concepts are so complex that it is difficult to express in any language regardless of how articulate you are or how good a writer. You need to have a preexisting experience with the concepts first. For example, just try to read Heraclitus's fragments. If you weren't already exposed to his insight on your own, there's no way in hell you will grasp any of it.
>>872404
>autism
>>872376
It is the highest form of mental masturbation, thus it is quite complicated.
OP has been asked several times what philosophy he has actually read and hasn't answered. So I'm guessing he never actually looked it and operating off hear-say.
This seems to be the pattern with a lot of STEMfags that outright dismiss philosophy. When you ask them what works they read they say they haven't touched the books because they "already know it's bullshit".
>>878991
Agreed, but there are a lot of bad philosophers.
>>876593
Oh wow, maybe have you read any Descartes?
You know, the guy who literally invented your field of study over four whole centuries ago?
the goals of mathematicians is to produce more mathematics and be paid for this, nothing else
because wittgenstein's austistic tantrum
>>882580
He invented analytic geometry you stupid dumbass.
>recommending Descartes' philosophy
What a fucking idiot Jesus Christ. Your parents much be in so much shame having to raise such a braindead retard.
>>882026
Sure, for maths in 8 grade.
If he's not underage, he's probably studying pure maths like me. This has an intrinsic link with philosophy.
>>889335
So mr. math philo-fag. What is a number? Are they platonic? A human construct? Something inbetween?
>>889340
It depends it could be rational and irrational, real and complex, imaginary algebraic and transcendental,perfect, surreal,hyperreal numbers or square and triangular numbers.
>Are they platonic? A human construct? Something in between?
Do I look like a Phil major to you pham
Platonic because of the transcendence, and a human construct by their nature?
I claim the concept link, I claim myself not anything more than a maggot, you probably have a better off start
set theory is used by physicists. When they say that ''the mass is 10 kg'' they literally believe that there is a number 10 floating in space and somehow giving you the answer on your measuring device..
Now, what framework for numbers ? it is set theory, where numbers are encoded as sets.
Since physicists believe that the mathematical inferences describe the world, when the inferences lead to quantified/numeric facts, they equally believe that the axioms of the set theory is true.
The first axiom of set theory is ''there exists a set''. so physicists believe that there is some set floating around.
>>889364
This is hilariously false
>DAE USE = MENTION
Just kill ourself, retard.
>>889810
Nah I realized that it's pasta.
>>872376
>mathematician here
I don't understand what's the point of saying this.
Part of what makes Philosophy difficult is that certain areas (e.g. the Kant responds to Hume who responds to Leibniz who in part responds to Descartes... etc) are loaded with semantic history. Words usually mean very specific things. Any philofag worth a penny will explicitly state how they are using words, probably several times. If they don't, or are ambiguous, it is usually to intentiomally/unintentionally cover up a weakness in their argument.
Philofag here
>>872376
the scientists love to think of themselves as good empiricists, and choose to spend their time trying to connect back their speculations to some empirical world, precisely because they know that their speculations are infertile, yet they cannot bear not to dwell in their mental proliferations, instead of remaining on pure empiricism which they despise (they think they would get bored).
science is based on induction far more than on empiricism. Empircism, in science, is here for the scientists to feel justify to claim that ''if my little deductive model is verified through my measurement, then my model describe some part of the universe'').
Induction is meant to fail, which leads people to have faith in refutability: if it does not work once, it will never work, which is still inductive, therefore completely dubious .
On the contrary, to be an empiricist means that you do not cling to your speculations, no matter their degree of formalization, and you cling even less to your fantasy of reality and explaining reality and communicating your explanations.
scientists know that their concepts and abstractions are purely induction, but they still cling to their formalization, this is why they choose to stuff their models with as many deductions as possible. scientists choose to think that, contrary to the inductions which are seen, by them, as personal, contingent, dirty, the deductions are less personal, cleaner, objective.
Since scientists and other rationalists have no justification of their claims, they choose the path of the (intellectual) terrorism in claiming that ''only the religious sheep and the degenerate empiricists, skeptics, relativists, solipsists do not agree with us; plus science give us rockets and cars and computers... see how science is good ! less pains and better pleasures for everyone, thanks to us, the good rationalists ! Science totally works guys, we are spot on defiling empiricism with our rationalism, trust us !''.
so you see the problem of the positivist, or even the rationalist in science,:
doubt is permitted only when the doubt is judged acceptable by the scientist [what is acceptable is what makes you have faith in what the scientist claims]:
-if you doubt too little from the statements of people talking to you, the scientist will call you a religious, a sheep, a guy spending his time on metaphysical theses which are disconnected form the reality [the reality that the scientist posits]
-if you doubt too much from the statements of the scientist, the scientist will wave then the card of nominalism, anti-realism, relativism/nihilism/solipsism and mock you, because the scientists have no other means, than terrorism, to validate their position
the fact that you have faith in mathematical models to tell you about ''the world'' (which is an inductive concept, like all concepts) is already a philosophical stance. but scientists cannot justify this stance and they become very upset as soon as they are recalled that they fail at justifying their claims that their inductions and deductions are more than conventions inside some formal language.
So they even say explicitly that they are not paid to justify their faith and that this justification does not matter anyway (because they choose to claim that ''science works, look it gives us computers and cars :DDDD'' which is nothing but feeding our hedonism and the statement itself remains very dubious)
the conclusion is that
-no knowledge will be gained from your speculations, labelled scientific or religious or philosophical.
precisely because your imagination is not really meant to be connected back from your five senses.
Scientists and any rationalist choose to think that a few of their favourite speculations, mental proliferations will lead them to truth about the world, will be ''validated empirically'' (after they invent the notion of ''validation'').
Why? because Scientists are hedonistic and love their hedonism. hedonistic people live through entertainment, which brings the most pleasures with the least discomfort. hedonism is the nihilism and most people rely on their speculations about the future, from the past experiences, to enhance their hedonism.
-the notion of irreversibility, necessity, certainty is present in pure empiricism, but the rationalists despise this, because, being hedonistic, they choose to think that empiricism leads you to boredom and sterility (to reach certainty). This is not the case, empirically, since as soon as you no longer care about what you think, you access a new world, free of speculations, where for once you no longer rely on induction (nor on the fantasy of deduction). You are concious directly of what people would call ''knowledge''.
>>872376
People literally think that proofs and numbers exists without humans, just like other people claim that Harry poter exists without humans, just like other people claim that God exists without humans. This is where we are in 2016....
What seems to last forever is the stupidity of the humanity to cling to the notion of eternity.
