/lit/ - Literature

>>22670272
it's over for formalists who want to capture the entirety of mathematics within a single formal system, but it isn't over for formalists in general. the theorem doesn't tell us anything about the ontology of mathematical objects, it only tells us that there is a necessary syntactic limitation to all sufficiently powerful formal systems.
incidentally though, godel himself seemingly did view the theorems as a kind of victory for platonism as you are suggesting

i really do not enjoy learning languages. it's not the same as learning mathematics or philosophy, where one actually learns new *concepts* every time one studies these things. there are no new concepts in language learning, only new ways of saying things you can already say. i am motivated purely by the benefits (being able to read in my target language and properly immersing myself in the culture of the country's where my target language is native) but that is it, unlike say mathematics where the ideas themselves are beautiful or at least interesting, in addition to the extensive benefits of being more and more mathematically literate.
i find language itself fascinating, but not individual languages. and i don't understand those people who spend like nine hours a day learning specific languages. why not spend that time on something more fundamental, like maths or philosophy? the only valid justificaiton for doing so i can think of is to impress the ladies because it is true that chicks dig polygots.