/lit/ - Literature

>>11208557
Math students are required to read Principia

>>11208562
An an exception. And they usually don't. But still, they learn their math from books about math written in the past few decades. Not directly from Gauss and Fermat.

>>11208557
Mathematical proofs don't have interpretation issues. People still argue over Plato and Aristotle; they don't argue about Euclid.

>>11208557
good bait

>>11208576
It is possible to transfer the ideas to other people without giving them your interpretation. Anyway if philosophy is so easy to confuse maybe you are doing something wrong.

>>11208584
Not bait. Though, I might be rationalizing my unwillingness to read the original texts instead of just reading IEP and Stanford Encyclopedia.

>>11208592
It is difficult. That being said, there are literally philosophy courses which attempt to do this.

>>11208592
>It is possible to transfer the ideas to other people without giving them your interpretation

>>11208592
I'm curious, what you think "philosophy" is?

It's almost like math an philosophy are completely different and you cant make comparisons like that.

>>11208612
Actually it's almost every subject. Math was just an example. Philosophy is the only one that works this way. I suspect it's because once the subject material gets deflated a lot of obscurantist hacks will lose their jobs.

>>11208609
: )

Philosophy is subjective, not objective. That's why.

>>11208625
That question wasn't rhetorical, it's not always the easiest question. What is philosophy to you?

>>11208642
cringe

>>11208646
philosophy is believing in yourself : )

>>11208652
You can stop trolling now

>inb4 responds with passive aggressive smiley

you mean gauss notebooks
euler already published real textbooks

science is about relations between facts, philosophy is about all other possible relations

You don't seem to understand the difference between natural and artificial language, what history is, what philosophy is, what philosophy is about, how it is related to sciences, what teaching is, what studying is, what living is altogether and how it relates to philosophy.

I'd reccomend starting with the Greeks to start understanding what it's all about. If it doesn't work for you, it's completely fine. After all, as Plato writes (Politeia, book 6), among other things, a certain amount of "talent" is required for philosophy. You might be better off as a producer, bouncer, or maybe an entrepreneur?

>>11208660
Sorry, I just don't see philosophy as a special subject. I don't have a good definition for it.

>>11208669
>You don't seem to understand the difference between natural and artificial language, what history is, what philosophy is, what philosophy is about, how it is related to sciences, what teaching is, what studying is, what living is altogether and how it relates to philosophy.
Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Because everyone but you is stupid and completely missed those philosophers' points

>>11208557
Learning technical skills doesn't include forming subjective interpretations

Is there a math chart?

>>11208743
are you saying anything that isn't philosophy is just 'technical skills'? Mathematics, for example, is very complex and ripe with subjective interpretations. It's just that old texts dealing with mathematics are antiquated and inferior (in complexity, development).

>>11209272
you mean how to start learning math and progress to grad level? yes, search /sci/

>>11208562

As someone with a master's degree in mathematics, I have never even seen the cover page of /Principia/

We just really like them and hope everyone will like them too

>>11209339
i don't think so anon. you just want to brag.

You’re stupid
Philosophy is the exploration of a mind, the terminology, the aesthetical word choices, the historical and intellectual context all make reading the original works that much more fascinating.
Philosophy is a big part of literature, just like reading a summery of English Literature is not interchangeable with reading Shakespeare, so is reading a philosophy for dummies book not the same as reading Plato.

>>11208679
Define mathematics

>>11209350
>Philosophy is the exploration of a mind, the terminology, the aesthetical word choices, the historical and intellectual context all make reading the original works that much more fascinating.
Fuckin lel, you remind me of dumb girls trying to rationalize how traveling to take cute selfies and seem cultured/adventurous/whatever, by saying it changes your perspective and you learn new cultures and all that bullshit. And I can assure you that aesthetical word choice might have to do with literature, but not with philosophy, if you think otherwise you are literally polluting the subject with noise. Historical/intellectual context can be given by reading ABOUT an author, not the author himself.

>Philosophy is a big part of literature, just like reading a summery of English Literature is not interchangeable with reading Shakespeare, so is reading a philosophy for dummies book not the same as reading Plato.
What does philosophy have to do with literature again you fuckin pseud? You really seem like that kind of person that tries hard to get the 'writer aesthetic', carrying expensive pens and moleskines and listening to Bauhaus. And I didn't mention reading shitty summaries to seem like you know a philosopher but only have superficial knowledge. Lastly, reading Shakespeare and literature in general is an EXPERIENCE. It is aesthetic. You seek to feel, not to learn/understand. This is why you can't say you know Shakespeare if you haven't read him.

>>11209344
Since you're so interested:
I never speak about ancient philosophy with my uninitiated friends, family or coworkers, letalone more esoteric interests like gnosticism or hermeticism -- now I'm bragging.

The simple point you seem to be missing about Philosophy is its dialectic nature. It doesn't suffice to read a condensed form of someone's thought if you want to understand all of its subtleties. This, coupled with the fact that all of it is based on now dead languages, leave a lot of room for study and revision. The simplest answer still though is that people enjoy reading them. I'm sure it's not all for the same reasons. Plato, Heraclitus, Porphyry, etc. no doubt have a certain mystical allure to some, entrancing, whilst others are charmed by the verse of Schopenhauer, or the descriptions of Fichte, or the cunning of Wittgenstein, the depth of Kant. In fact, you've got to enjoy the act of reading through these. Preferably in their own language. And always start with the Greeks.

>>11209361
Why? I don't need to know what it means. I study mathematics just fine. It's too broad a concept to define it.
Just checked wikipedia out of curiosity and it says on the first line that it has no generally accepted definition.

>>11208562
LOL nobody in any math department reads the Principia, I bet a substantial number of math phds dont even know what it is.

t. math phd student

>>11208660
:^)

>>11209377
>uninitiated
; ) as above so below ; )

>The simple point you seem to be missing about Philosophy is its dialectic nature. It doesn't suffice to read a condensed form of someone's thought if you want to understand all of its subtleties. This, coupled with the fact that all of it is based on now dead languages, leave a lot of room for study and revision.
You're rising a huge point here that I can't bother to reply thoughtfully. One might acquire more knowledge from secondary literature than if they'd read the original. Consider this fully.

Now, you mentioned that people enjoy reading them. Obviously I can't disagree with this point, but there's the fact that I'd PERSONALLY enjoy countless other things over reading philosophy, coupled with how this same enjoyment* can be gained through the secondary literature, makes me think that at least the majority of people who say they enjoy philosophy really just do it for bragging rights. Doesn't apply to everyone.

*You talked of mystical allure, verse, etc. The enjoyment gained from these is aesthetic, ie we're talking about literature. See what I said in the post above yours. The aesthetic satisfaction is different from the satisfaction of knowledge.

>If you studied math, you wouldn't study Euclid's Elements or Euler's notebooks or papers or whatever or Principia Mathematica,
Wrong
>>11208576
> they don't argue about Euclid.
Wrong

>>11209488
how is the first quote wrong?

Philosophy has no history.

>>11209516
Because there are infinite different ways to study math. There is no correct way, and there never will be.

>>11209525
there is a generally accepted way to study math that all formal institutions recognize as the optimal and follow. all autodidacts too. everyone.

>>11209525
>>11209516
As a matter of fact, many of the universities have it completely wrong.

The best way to study math is to study contemporary understanding but dip into the past a bit also, like with Euclid or Archimedes or Nicomachus.

>>11209534
see
>>11209535

If historical understanding is not a part of this, then it is flawed. Objectively pretty big flaw. You could learn trigonometry from Ptolemy and elements of calculus from Archimedes, and understand how they exist the way they do.

I know I'm glad I understand the origin and meaning of Pi, and I understand it much more after contemplating the works by Archimedes and Pappus that deal with it.

Is reading Euclid's Elements or Euler's notebooks or whatever or Principia Mathematica stupid?

Don't you sometimes feel that the entire field of mathematics education is just a way to employ a few hundred thousand people to regurgitate information to people who are too stupid to try reading it on their own, and an artifact of something that was once necessary but is no longer now that we can and have paid people to translate the works in question to technical English?

Because mathematics has a highly precise formalized language and concerns itself with exact numbers and problems.
Philosophy is transmitted through the less precise natural language, its subjects are often alien and vague (how do we learn things, does God exist...) and require complicated proofs.
If you can encapsulate the whole work of Plato of Aristotle into several logical formulas and premises that you can apply everywhere with consistent results you're a genius.

>>11209534
Factually incorrect. You never did anything past intro calculus did you?

>>11209555
ive done up to multivariable, linalg, discrete math, probability, stats, some stochastic proc, numerical analysis, DE's, some topology, and many subjects that fall near computer science but are mostly math(think machine learning, cryptography).

you're a fuckin idiot and you don't know what you're talking about, are you implying that a slight change in order doesn't mean that there is a generally accepted way to do math? holy shit why did i bother replying.

>>11209456
I can't argue with you on that point, you're absolutely right and I have considered it fully. I've read a lot of secondary works that encompass larger historical periods than it would initially seem adequate as far as respectfully treating a subject matter goes, but looking back, those works were and still are invaluable to me. In fact, it would be absurd to make a point to ever always read from primary sources; there's so much of it your head spins.

As far as you're concerned, you should do as you will. My first look into philosophy started with Harper's Masterpieces of World Philosophy in Summary Form, so I'm definitely not against such works. I cherish some of them.

Finally, my point about the varying aspects of a work one might be charmed by was to (clumsily) point out the difficulty in separating pure intellectual pursuit from fetishization. Though there are varrying degrees of separation from the original intent of the pursuit -- I'm sure you wouldn't mind me saying your exemples were a little caricaturesque, valid still -- but, in some way, the original intellectual intent perdures and perhaps it does so because, and not in spite, of the aesthetic satisfaction. Wouldn't you say so? I'll have to think more about it all. I don't know if it's my own reluctance to let go of the bias I have for the classics or whether there's something to be said about the phenomenology of intellectual pursuit and aestheticism.

>>11209586
There is not a "generally accepted" way once you start doing actual, proof-based math. For example you haven't done any abstract algebra, you've eschewed half of mathematics.

>>11209598
cringe, you're completely offtopic, im talking about reading from fuckin newton's and fermat's manuscripts and you're talking about a different order of reading undergrad math subjects.

>>11209328
This. Appears their containment board has been leaking lately.

>>11209384
>What does this word mean to you?
>I don't know wikipedia wont tell me
a-are you a p-zombie?

>>11208557
Stop being a lazybutt psued and just start reading the greeks.

>>11209542
I'm reading Elements now and realizing how weak my HS education was. I doubt 99% of the population could prove the first 10 propositions without looking at Euclid's proof.
>pic related

>>11210715
sorry

>>11209373
You seem to be confused by your own proposition, you asked “why is it that people read original philosophical texts” and in your faulty conclusion decided that it is a negative thing.
I tried to explain to you that the secular recitation of logical axioms in the context of a certain semantic field and societal narrative is not “philosophy”, it is the barebones of the logic, in actuality the boundaries between philosophy and literature-history-science-cleaning dishes etc are not symetrical , your emotional bias towards the consumption of the logical axioms solely isn’t implicitly better as a choice than consuming philosophy for other emotional biases
Your logic is deeply flawed and make you seem like an idiot, try to increase your intellectual competence.

>>11208562
Not at all.

>>11208557
Anglondetected. Nearly all good mathematicians (that is, non-Anglo mathematicians) did. Some examples are Abel, Siegel, Weil, etc. Of course, Anglos are all provincial folks who don't read outside their tradition which is why they always spout this nonsense.

Also,
>Euler's notebooks
Only something a physishit or cstard (both Anglo """"""""sciences"""""""") would say. Don't think you're a mathematician for dabbling in those hocus pocus fields. Fuck off to /x/.

>>11208562
lol no

>>11209542

The Elements is a worthwhile read, don't listen to anyone on /sci/, or on this board such as the OP who dismiss it. You are free to skip the historical commentary if you wish, and simply work through the propositions. Working through the text, writing and drawing for yourself, and making your own understanding of the material, is the proper content of actually doing mathematics. That the subject matter is relatively simple does not negate the fact that if you're reading carefully and doing the sort of activity I'd just mentioned, you're actually doing math properly. Historically, this is the value of the text: getting people to think and experiment in that precise way, which goes to the rest of mathematical activity. There's more to math than "stamp-collecting" (just proving theorem after theorem), like experimenting, trying other ideas etc, but it's still true that proving theorems is a central activity of math, and so it's good for a math text to be all about that, which the Elements is.

In terms of actually using the text (or not), the present day is the historical aberration. Elements was used consistently in education for about two thousand years until about the last century or so, when contemporary modernization started getting traction. It is difficult to make a case that a text is bereft of value when it gets transmitted and re-read continuously over twenty centuries. Another stupid complaint which is sometimes made here and on /sci/ is that it is "insufficiently rigorous", as if all of current mathematics is autistically focused on foundations at all times (it isn't).

Now take Principia Mathematica (Russell/Whitehead, not the Newton physics text). That one, you don't have to read. It's a pure historical artifact, and the notation on the page is ugly, which makes it that much more onerous when you actually page through a copy.

>>11208557

This is because our society has heralded science and mathematics as above the humanities in that it is objective, whereas humanities are subjective. Since humanities are subjective they require revisiting the original sources, whereas math is TAUGHT dogmatically. Not that it necessarily is. We value people learning concepts and applying those concepts as quick as possible. That is why university courses only teach parts of philosophical works and heavily use secondary sources. There is simply too much to teach in too little time, thus they mentor you in showing you what to learn on your own. In math you can get by just fine without knowing the original works, in philosophy you cannot.

>>11211435
dumb phoneposter

>>11211458
t. butthurt anglo

>>11209535
>The best way to study math is to study contemporary understanding but dip into the past a bit also, like with Euclid or Archimedes or Nicomachus

>>11210692

The implication of this stupid post is that science, like masturbating to cartoon ponies, white power, or being a NEET loser, is an undesirable topic of discussion which nevertheless has a minority interest who won't stop talking about it, necessitating a separate board to keep unpleasant discussion away from higher-quality boards, such as other genres of cartoon pornography and random chatting between people from different countries. Of course, this is false.

>>11208562
no the fuck we are not

>>11209286
they're often not at all antiquated or inferior in complexity or development, they're just not in the same language we use today and often not at the same level of rigor so there are some false results . people do rediscover interesting results that are actually true from rereading old papers

>>11208557
>if you studied math, you wouldn't study Euclid's Elements

Yes you would. Stop talking.

>>11208557
>if you studied math, you wouldn't study Euclid's Elements

Yes you would. Your advice is terrible. Stop talking.

>>11213277
show me a syllabus from a math class requiring euclid, i knew a few math majors some from liberal arts school, some from tech schools, none of them read euclid

>>11213281
what class would you read this in? got a syllabus for it?

>>11208557
>If you studied math, you wouldn't study Euclid's Elements or Euler's notebooks or papers or whatever or Principia Mathematica
If you were serious about math, you definitely would.

Also, math isn't philosophy. Philosophy is a broader domain.

Historical context isn't needed in maths. Most philosophy is a reaction to old philosophy, so it's good to read what came before to even begin to understand what you're dealing with today.

>>11208557
If all you read are synopsis you will be made a fool of by every simpleton who has actually read the work. You attitude is THE attitude of pseudo-intellectual know-nothings who have ZERO scholastic knowledge, but speak as if experts. It is disgusting.

>>11213293
Literally any College with the Great Books curriculum. I’m next to a library with the Great Books in it

>>11213293
You're too young for academia.

Here's a wakeup call for you, kiddie. YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO BE TOLD TO READ SOURCEWORKS BY A PROFESSOR. If you want to be at the top of your field, you will know more than everyone in your field. This intrinsically means having firsthand experience with and interpretations of sourceworks - not being a lazy brainlet who relies on the scholarship of real intellectuals. Quit advocating that everyone should aim to be third-rate.

>>11213303

The first sentence of this post is the single worst sentence typed on 4chan this year thus far.

>>11213303
That depends on what you mean by historical context.

>>11213351
I see you've never studied maths. Do you think we go through the history of concepts we're learning about? Maths was influenced throughout history, but it's not necessary to understand how it functioned in the past to understand it today. Imaginary numbers, 0, and negative numbers weren't used in the past in some cultures. Why should a mathematician give a single fuck about that?

"... whenever a sudden conversion I want, / To send to the school of philosopher Kant"

>>11213379

On the contrary, I hold a math degree, it's simply that it's you who's stupid, and know not whereof you speak. Cue your unwarranted incredulity.

>>11213438
Sure anon. I'll believe you when you tell me I'm stupid without saying anything to back it up.

>>11208663
>science as relations between facts
>ignores epistemology

K

>>11211457
Underrated.

>>11213339
based

>>11211974
>they're just not in the same language we use today and often not at the same level of rigor so there are some false results
Isn't that what antiquated means?

If you need to work with understanding the language instead of the subject it creates an additional barrier. Not really saying there irrelevant but when learning math for practical purposes they probably are. By that I mean stuff like engineering where math is a tool first and foremost.

>>11211457
very underrated. This is the only thing I can call an answer in this thread considering how many brainlets sidetracking real reason of OP's question

>>11208557
because math has universal symbolic language in which it's ideas are conveyed. Philosophy doesn't have this, its written in different languages and by one single word can mean entirely different things. You can not misinterpret Pythagorean theorem, but you can (and should) build your own understanding of a philosophy piece. When you read short summary of some philosopher's work you consume secondary product. With math, you get the original idea, converted in more convenient for studying form

>>11213467
which means epistemology doesnt belong to science, it's aesthetics: relation between facts and man

>>11208557

This is the actual proof philosophy is in the middle between literature and science.

>>11209542
>Is reading Euclid's Elements or Euler's notebooks or whatever or Principia Mathematica stupid?
No.
The value of mathematical facts in these books is practically zero, but along the way of reading them you will gain an understanding about mathematics and will learn the basic techniques still used today.

>>11214145
I see this happening more and more on this board. Quality content often will go unnoticed while so many poorly reasoned answers will receive even more thoughtless replies.

I hate all of you so much why hasn't anyone read anything ahhhhhhhhhh

>>11214478
>>11214145
>>11211457
I don't know how can you blame "society". Did individuals, out of nowhere, start deciding that one subject is better than the other? This is a logic leap, there's something you're missing. Also, if anything, society has decided that philosophy/humanities is more prestigious and makes you more well rounded while STEM is for nerds.

>>11214337
>When you read short summary of some philosopher's work you consume secondary product. With math, you get the original idea, converted in more convenient for studying form
Why does everyone imply I want to read a fucking paragraph summary of a philosopher and be done with it? You said about math it can be converted into a more convenient form. This, in my opinion, can be said for philosophy too. Especially if you take a look at how badly written the texts of some philosophers are(ever tried Kant?). Also, the fact that philosophy is not written in the same languages, and that a word can be interpreted in many ways, IS A FUCKING FLAW, NOT A PROPERTY, NOT SOMETHING ONE FINDS POSITIVE. TRY FICTION IF YOU LIKE WORDS YOU FUCKING OBSCURANTISTS.


>>11213303
Historical context can be given by the author's biased perspective, but cannot be given by experts who have studied the period spherically and in a scholarly fashion? Fuck off.

>>11208557

Umm, let's see, philosophy is not math perhaps?

>>11214772
So you're asking when did that happen? It doesn't matter when it happened, it is the current state. I suppose if you want more context I would say that it happened as we placed more emphasis on materialist perspectives. So perhaps when rationalism became the chief epistemology, maybe enlightenment.

Philosophy being viewed as more well rounded does not change the fact that stem is taught as objective. The fact that it, and education in general, are dogmatic and viewed as objective means that naturally it is not viewed as valuable to look at primary sources to learn. Of course this is ill-conceived.

>>11208557
I haven't read the rest of the thread so I don't know if someone already explained this.
It's a meme that has two origins
The first is due how philosophical training was structured tradionally. A classical education meant that you had to read the Greeks, Aristotle and Plato in particular. For example philosophers were all Aristotelians at one yet they made you study Plato anyway because he was a very important figure.
The second is Hegel. Dialectics and stuff.

Mathematics is entirely within the a priori, and philosophy is broadened into the studies that arise into it, regardless of the a priori functions in, say, mathematics

>>11216766
So, just inertia? This has to change then.


"248. That no one apart from philosophers is really capable of understanding philosophy can be seen by considering how they teach it at the universities. Being unable to sort out what is right from wrong, they simply teach everything. Now imagine how things would fare with any of the sciences if they followed the same prescription, and the state of modern philosophy — and the public's utter disdain and ridicule of it — should not be that hard to understand and sympathize with."