/lit/ - Literature

>>6369005
>natural conclusion to philosophy

Which philosophy?

Because the logical conclusions of rationalism and nihilism are completely different. The term "philosophy" is too broad. Mathematics implies, at least on the base level, that there is an order to the universe. An existentialist would say that you make the order of your life, and that you can decide it. But mathematics doesn't care about your will--2 + 2=4; I don't care how much "will" you have. Heck, certain types of mathematics can imply certain types of philosophy, but even that's questionable.

Can mathematics solve the trolley problem (I know that's babby's first philosophy, but I'm trying to prove a point here.)? Sure, you say--find the solution that gives the greatest profit. Okay, that's utilitarianism. What about all the other philosophical systems?

And, futhermore, how does philosophy lead to integrals? Or calculus? Or differential equations?

It seems what you mean is "I realized the philosophy of an, ordered, calculable world understood by mathematics is the logical conclusion to philosophy." Which, fine, but please be clearer. And if that's not what you mean, explain what you mean, because just saying "philosophy" and "mathematics" encompass two very big fields.