/lit/ - Literature

No. They usually teach you 0 mathematics at philosophy courses outside of formal logic, if you consider that to be mathematics.

>>16827517
It depends om what you specialize. In analytic departments is not uncommon to find people who are savvy in both philosophy and maths. Also I know a few platonists professors who have rigorously studied geometry.

*sigh*

>>16827555
It's usually just advanced logic and most of them don't know a lot of math, even in the analytic tradition.

>>16827633
People who do phil of mathematics and phil of physics do study maths at sn advanced level, at least in anglophone countries. I can assurr you that

>>16827591
most people aren't capable of understanding and passing advanced math courses no matter how much they train

>>16827488
The answer to the first question is yes.
The answer to the second is yes.

>>16827928
Unfathomably based

>>16827488
The other way around

>>16828042
This. Mathematics is a subset of philosophy. Also, to give any value to mathematics without being a platonist is hypocritical

>>16827870

citation?

>>16828084
Simple exercice: define a dodecahedron.

>>16828095
Not that anon. A twelve sided geometric shape?

>>16828102

oof

>>16827488
It depends on what you mean by "mathematics." If you just mean do routine calculations, then no. If you mean proof writing and being able to learn and understand rigorous theory, then yes. Learning mathematics gives people a way to practice their skills in formal logic, which makes them better philosophers. As someone who studies mathematics, I have experienced this myself. I cannot say, unfortunately, if the converse is true, though I expect it to be, but most likely not as strong of an improvement.

>>16828095
that doesn't prove much. you were talking about the potential of most people, not what they already know.

>>16828095
Retard

>>16828151
My intention with the exercice was to take a shape that everyone knows (it could have been a cube or any other shape) and have people define it. Not to see if you know your platonic shapes, but to see if your are able to give logical proofs that such a shape exists. Not everyone knows what they know and in other words; not everyone knows that they don't know.

>>16827488
You don't need anything to understand Philosophy.

>>16828095
>>16828108

>>16828177
You need a basic understanding of formal logic, which is something that, although intuitive to most is best taught explicitly so that students are skilled in it and can consciously use it.

>>16828197
>imagine doing any field in a logic that was formulated from someone else's metaphysics
I shiggy diggy

>>16827488
look man...for philosophy alone? NO but lets be honest...to win any debate you need to know your math right you dont need to be excellent at it just average, but the math is not the focus ok? the theory on what youre thinking and debating on is

>>16827488
>All men are mortal
>Plato is a man
>Therefore Plato is Mortal
There, saved ya time.

Most philosophy is building up arguments to the strongest versions of themselves then trying to break them down.

>>16828242
>to win any debate[...]
Kill yourself.

>>16828281
no you kill yourself you nigger

>>16828184
/thread

>>16828095
What does that have to do with mathematical ability? It's just a definition. Looking up words in a dictionary doesn't automatically make you a good writer, and by the same token knowing a lot of definitions doesn't make you good at math.

>>16828309
Debating has nothing to do with philosophy, you're a quack.

>>16827488
Love philosophy failed geometry 3 times failed algebra 2 (never applied myself tho )

>>16828358
Mathematics is nothing but definitions.

>>16828197
If you don't have common sense you're going to have worse struggles than understanding Philosophy.

>>16828408
>Mathematics is nothing but definitions.
imagine being this stupid.

>>16828358
The ability to construct definitions of things you can imagine without the definition being given to you is central to the cognitive process you call philosophy

>>16828422
He's kind of right, mathematics is frequently steeped in technical jargon for the sake of talking very rapidly about its obscure technicalities. Mathematics in many ways is more jargon laden than physics but is frequently easier on the computation side of things. It deals in generalizations which are related (but not equivalent) to definitions.

>>16828110
>It depends on what you mean by "mathematics."
This is an important point. Present-day mathematics is very different from what mathematics used to be in a pre-Cartesian era. After Descartes published his little book on geometry (an appendix to his Discourse on the Method) mathematics slowly but surely started to move in a new and different direction compared to the mathematics of the ancient Greeks. Computation (which is the past was more a concern of merchants) became more important than synthetic proof, and arithmetic became more important than geometry, thanks to Descartes' reduction of geometric problems to elementary algebra. Synthetic geometry survived as a niche subject in mathematics, but that subject was the one exalted by the Greeks as almost the whole of "mathematics" back in their times. Even Pascal that OP posted was mainly interested in synthetic projective geometry.

>>16828437
Sure, he is right in a sense. Technically, every result is just a corollary of axioms, but it makes mathematics sound trivially easy and straight forward, which every can agree it's not.

>>16828408
>what are primitive terms?
>what are axioms?
>what are rules of inference?

>>16828438
based Linear Algebra Done Right. I never understood the controversy behind the book. It never claimed to be a book to teach engineers linear algebra, so the nerds complaining about it putting off determinants to the end are making a mute point. Is it just because of the title? I was a great way for me to review linear algebra two semester after taking the general linear algebra class.

Analytic philosophy is like a joke to me. It is a completely superfluous system.
Deductive argumentation (besides what is involved in mathematical proofs), comes in 3 types : a priori truths (consequences are implied in the logic of the previous statements), disproving the existential possibility of something (through contradiction), and "If and Only If then" causal arguments.

Even high school students could formulate or understand these simple arguments. What good is it looking at the formula analytically? Pragmatically, it's a waste of time and mental masturbation for anyone concerned with the searching for or proving truth.

>>16827870
If they've passed the pre-reqs they'd have a good shot, I would say. 'Advanced math courses' don't just come out of nowhere, this is a 'linear' subject we're talking about.

That said, OP: both mathematics and philosophy are the kind of subject that when you get good at it, you get better at just about everything else. You may not need mathematics, as such, but it certainly isn't going to hurt. And all the proclamations about how difficult the subject it are utterly overblown. Start with the easy stuff you can understand and work your way up gradually, baby steps. The standard curriculum is 'linear' as they say and it all sort of locks in together, so by the time you get to the hard, abstract-looking stuff it will in fact have an air of familiarity to it. Don't sleep on online resources if you do decide to have a go, Khan Academy is your friend. Although, to reiterate, you don't need maths at all. But it is fun.

>>16828422
logic and science are just a narrative like any other and it is not proven at all it investigates anything

This is because formalized science is based on logicized maths, hyped as ''the language of the universe'' by posci addicts lol

and logicized maths is based on logic

all mathematicians are logic babies addicted to ZFC and they are all platonist, ie ''numbers are real bro not social construct''.

By the way truth is not found in logic. Logic is just a field by autistic pedants about well formed formulas and valuations, ie sending a formula to 1 or 0 and asking what are those valuations which are stable under inference rules. Zero truth in this, especially truth in the casual sense. Tarski truth is moronic, meaningless. Peak atheist.
Just like there is no truth in science, just some stats and a stat convention for saying ''if p value is XXX then the result is''true''''

This is why science is shit for politics and even for daily life.
At best scientists can come up about some stats about some formal system. Like ''this material has such and wear and tear, therefore our backlog of such conditons lead to 60% of breaking in the next year''
That's the pinnacle of the scientific claim and all their claims remain phrased as uncertainty.

all of this because the brain got bigger while the cranium stayed the same.

>>16829617
I take it you didn't do very well at school, did you?

>>16830025
That anon was correct in everything he said. Trying to make snarky replies won't change that.

>>16828309
Wow what a master debater

ITT dumb English majors coping

>>16828071
I can tell you've never studied any mathematics in depth.

Mathematics at university level in no way supposes a Platonist relation of mathematical form to instantiated substance, rather mathematical objects are seen are logical tools/instruments which can be transformed according to certain rules.

You can see this map-territory relation through optimisation, linear algebra (especially in its applied forms in economics, computer science and particle physics) and of course statistics and mechanics. Even the application of F=MA needs nuance in many problems for it to be a useful way to approach them.

Mathematical instruments can be a useful way to understand 'real-world' phenomena, but there is a big map-territory distinction that underlies mathematics in academia. Mathematical instruments are developed to formalise and standardise real world problems rather than to suppose some underlying formal essence of the problem.

even Pascal thought it was another surrogate activity, just like uncle Ted

>57 Vanity of the sciences.
> The knowledge of outward things will not console me in times of affliction for the lack of moral rules, but knowledge of the laws of morality will always console me for lack of knowledge of the physical sciences.

>566
>I had spent a long time in the study of abstract sciences, and I had been put off them by realizing how little one could discuss them. When I began the study of humanity, I saw that these abstract sciences are not proper to humanity, and that I was moving further away from my condition by going into them than were others by being ignorant of them.

>669 Mathematics, Intuition
>Some draw the right conclusions from a few principles, and that is one kind of right thinking. Others draw the right conclusions from things where many principles are involved. For example, some people fully understand the properties of water, which involve few principles; but the conclusions are so subtle that only an extremely accurate mind can reach them. For all that, these people might not be great mathematicians, because mathematics includes a large number of principles, and a mind may well be of the kind that can easily fathom a few principles in depth without being capable at all of penetrating things where many principles are involved. There are therefore two sorts of mind: one penetrates quickly and deeply the conclusions of principles, and that is the accurate mind; the other can grasp a large number of principles without mixing them up, and that is the mathematical mind. The first is a powerful and precise mind, the other demonstrates breadth of mind. Now it is quite possible for one to work without the other, for a mind can be powerful and narrow, and can also be broad and weak.

>670
>Mathematicians who are only mathematicians therefore reason straightforwardly, providing only that everything is explained clearly in definitions and principles; otherwise they are unsound and intolerable, because they reason straightforwardly only when principles are clearly established. And intuitive minds which are only intuitive cannot have the patience to go to the heart of first principles of speculation and imaginative matters which they have never experienced, and which are quite out of the ordinary.

>671 Mathematics/ intuition.
>True eloquence has no time for eloquence. True morality has no time for morality-that is to say, the morality of judgement has no time for the morality of the mind, which has no rules. For judgement is what goes with feeling, as knowledge goes with the mind. Intuition is intrinsic to judgement, as mathematics is to the mind.
>To have no time for philosophy is truly to philosophize.

>The fake philosophical terminology of mathematical logic has misled philosophers into believing that mathematical logic deals with the truth in the philosophical sense. But this is a mistake. Mathematical logic deals not with the truth but only with the game of truth. The snobbish symbol-dropping found nowadays in philosophical papers raises eyebrows among mathematicians, like someone paying his grocery bill with Monopoly money.

>The prejudice that a concept must be precisely defined in order to be meaningful, or that an argument must be precisely stated in order to make sense, is one of the most insidious of the twentieth century. The best known expression of this prejudice appears at the end of Ludwig Wittgenstein's Tractate. The author's later writings, in particular PhilosophicalInvestigationst are a loud and repeated retraction of his earlier gaffe.

>Looked at from the vantage point of ordinary experience, the ideal of precision seems preposterous. Our everyday reasoning is not precise, yet it is effective. Nature itself, from the cosmos to the gene, is approximate and inaccurate.

t. gian-carlo rota

>>16827488
>plato
>pythagoras
>pascal
>probably the greates philosophers were genius mathematicians
Yes, you really cannot become a true philosopher if you're not one, that's why philosophy is a joke nowdays, they're brainlets

>>16830057
That anon is barely coherent in anything he said, snark is the only way to have fun with such a post.

Post math-charts for brainlets