/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20624018]

Why are so many philosophers also mathematicians?

[Anonymous No.20624021]

>>20624018
because math is also fake and gay

[Anonymous No.20624032]

Same delusion. Namely that all of reality can be explained by phenomenal relationships. They both believe that there is some truth that exists if I can just figure out how A relates to B.

They can prove all of the interesting phenomenal relations they want and never once touch the nature of anything. Just say "oh, that's funny that this works like this."

[Anonymous No.20624047]

>>20624018
autism

[Anonymous No.20624162]

>>20624018
Because there's nothing else worth pursuing.

[Anonymous No.20625147]

>>20624018
Auti- >>20624047
Beat to it.

[Anonymous No.20625275]

>>20624018
why do body builders stretch AND lift weights?

[Anonymous No.20625277]

>>20625275
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBVaSNYNGkY

[Anonymous No.20625563]

>>20624032
filtered

[Anonymous No.20625588]

>>20624032
Mathematics is the study of supra-phenomenal relationships. You will never find mathematical laws in phenomena. This is evident due to how heavily scientific theory depends on mathematical reality, and not vice versa.

[Anonymous No.20625598]

>>20624018
Their inherent madness applies well to both fields

[Anonymous No.20626321]

>>20624021
Math is real.

[Anonymous No.20626356]

>>20624018
Because math is just another logical system that uses symbols to convey meaning

[Anonymous No.20626377]

>>20624018
Telos seeks logos

[Anonymous No.20626493]

>>20624018
because math like philosophy are subjects that can be practiced by people who don't go outside.

[Anonymous No.20626532]

>>20625598
>>20626493
this but unironically

[Anonymous No.20626974]

>>20624021
Makes sense.

[Anonymous No.20627680]

>>20624018
people who are insecure about their intelligence self-rationalizing.

[Anonymous No.20627816]

>>20625588
SPEAK ENGLISH EINSTEIN

[Anonymous No.20628834]

>>20624032
>Same delusion. Namely that all of reality can be explained by phenomenal relationships.
>As opposed to the elect few with access to true reality.

Anon, the first step away from your inferiority complex is to accept your limitations.

[Anonymous No.20628842]

>>20625588
how do I study phenomenal relationships then

[Anonymous No.20628855]

>>20627680
Both stupid and insecure anon. What's with all the fragile egos on this thread?

[Anonymous No.20628857]

This isn't really the case. True philosophers with mathematical backgrounds are rare. The genius in mathematics always end up just going balls-deep into pure maths, and you can't really call that philosophy. Most mathematics-philosophers are unbearable pseuds like Russell who don't understand either and are compensating for it both ways.

[Anonymous No.20628866]

>>20624018
Mathematics is applied philosophy

[Anonymous No.20629205]

>>20628834
>As opposed to the elect few with access to true reality.
What? When and where did I imply anything can access true reality? Are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.20629554]

>>20629205
>When and where did I imply anything can access true reality?

here:

>never once touch the nature of anything

If you're implying that a nature of anything exists without any possibility of access to it, it's worse than I initially though.

>Are you retarded?
I may be, which makes your case all the more serious.

[Anonymous No.20630310]

>>20628857
All of the following philosophers either had mathematical backgrounds, taught mathematics, wrote on mathematics, or were actual mathematicians who made significant mathematical contributions:

>Thales of Miletus (The first philosopher)
>Pythagoras
>Hippasus
>Zeno of Elea
>Anaxagoras
>Democritus
>Hippias of Elis
>Archytas
>Plato
>Xenocrates
>Aristotle
>Chrysippus
>Proclus
>Simplicius of Cilicia
>Hypatia
>Boethius
>Bede
>Al-Kindi
>Avicenna
>Khayyam
>Abelard
>Averroes
>Roger Bacon
>William of Ockham
>Oresme
>Nicholas of Cusa
>Bruno
>Hobbes
>Malebranche
>Gassendi
>Descartes
>Arnauld
>Pascal
>Newton
>Leibniz
>Wolff
>Berkeley
>Maupertuis
>Boscovich
>d'Alembert
>de Condorcet
>Reid
>Bayes
>Kant
>Bolzano
>Charles Babbage
>Whewell
>Carlyle
>Boole
>Marx
>Bergson
>Husserl
>Peirce
>Bernays
>Frege
>Russell
>Whitehead
>Gödel
>Wittgenstein
>Brouwer
>Weyl
>Carnap
>Ramsey
>Quine
>Lakatos
>Tarski
>Putnam
>Kripke

>pseuds like Russell who don't understand either and are compensating for it both ways.
t. the philosophy dropout who never understood anything past highschool algebra

[Anonymous No.20630345]

>>20630310
Anon, Russel gave up on mathematics sfter Godel's famous two theorems and decided to publish papers in random things (among them in how being a cuck is a good thing hust because his father was a cuck).

[Anonymous No.20630363]

>>20624018
Logical thinking lends itself to logical problems of all kinds.

>>20624162
No. There is a lot left apparently undone in mathematics though.

[Anonymous No.20630391]

>>20630345
Yes, I know, he was smug libtard anglo degen faggot; and yeah, I agree, he was a midwit, but he was a high I.Q. midwit. I'm not going to pretend like he made no contributions to mathematics or philosophy worth caring about, especially when his work in both fields directly influenced people like Gödel and Wittgenstein.
This sentence:
>pseuds like Russell who don't understand either and are compensating for it both ways.
just reads way too dismissively to me for someone whose work really was profound in many ways.

[Anonymous No.20630406]

>>20624018
Because math is undeniable in the exact way philosophy wants to be.
(IMO)

[Anonymous No.20631169]

>>20630363
>>20630406
I fail to see the countless number of unproven/uncertain conjectures that arose from axioms already expounded upon beyond nature like number-theoretic meandering as “undeniable”

[Anonymous No.20631563]

>>20631169
Why is this my problem?

[Anonymous No.20632159]

>>20624018
Math is a philosophy

[Anonymous No.20632173]

>>20630406
You can deny the most basic axioms in maths and no one will ever be able to prove you wrong. So no, maths is not undeniable, neither is philosophy.

[Anonymous No.20632177]

>>20624018
I challenge the premise of this question. Maths and philosophy may have a close relationship but career mathematicians rarely make good philosophy and career philosophers simply can't into math

[Anonymous No.20633623]

>>20631169
>unproven/uncertain conjectures
If they are unproven, then they are not undeniable. The proof exists though, so if we find it, then it will be undeniable if you accept the axioms as >>20632173 points out (which most rational people do).

[Anonymous No.20633820]

>>20632173
No one really cares if you deny that the axioms are true though. The undeniable part is that the theorems logically follows from the axioms. It's like playing a game, you can deny that the rules of chess are "true" but you can't deny that a certain board position is possible using those rules.

[Anonymous No.20633826]

>>20624018
Because both are based on pure logic.

[Anonymous No.20633828]

>>20624021
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.20633850]

>>20632177
I believe this has more to do with making these subjects as “careers” in the modern sense means you hyper specializing in that given field. If you look at scholars in the past, this wasnt an issue. Hell back then academics had to at least know things like Latin to be taken seriously because no matter your field you were expected to know things outside your specialty. As times went on we stopped this especially after industrial revolution

[Anonymous No.20634756]

>>20624018
They get tired of being useless

[Anonymous No.20635026]

>>20629554
Based retard. Let me clear it up for you.

>If you're implying that a nature of anything exists without any possibility of access to it, it's worse than I initially though.
I'm implying that if we accidentally knew everything we could never know if its everything, therefore the category will always escape us. ergo we can never know everything.

[Anonymous No.20635037]

>>20624021
fpbp