math and philosophy

[Anonymous No.12468493]

Am I the only one who thinks all other subjects are kind of boring? They're the only areas of thought that create genuinely new concepts. For any other area to say something meaningful they have to appropriate mathematics. So if they came up with a genuinely new idea, they'd have to come up with new math to express it. But, this new math would likely be useful in other areas, so it'd more properly belong to math as much, and not the area where that mathematical idea originated.

If you've studied the basics of math (calculus, linear algebra, probabillity, elementary group theory), learning any other topic (physics, neuroscience, economics, computer science, the list goes on), just feels like putting a bunch of labels in boxes you already have in your head, aka just a bunch of rote memorization and vocabulary building. Of course, not saying this makes these other fields less useful, but it certainly makes them a lot less interesting.

[Anonymous No.12468498]

>>12468493
>So if they came up with a genuinely new idea, they'd have to come up with new math to express it.

I studied math and philosophy most things cannot be described mathematically.

its also very rare new math gets invented. most of the time researchers are just extending the depths of existing fields and new fields are just applications of existing math to new questions.

Math itself is supposed to be a philosphical inquiry into space and quantity and that sort of thing. the modern situation is hyperspecialized research by technical experts with just a few people who really understand the larger ideas

[Anonymous No.12468598]

>>12468498
okay, but we're talking about learning math here. How many people understand algebraic geometry? its literally like 1% of 1% of 1% of the world probably. Still, algebraic geometry is filled with very interesting concepts.

When you learn math, you're mostly learning the most fundamental ideas in a given branch

[Anonymous No.12469209]

[Anonymous No.12471122]

>>12468493
rote learning physics may feel like just putting labels to math, but actually applying physics requires a pretty good deal of physics understanding that in my mind at least feels incredibly divorced from the mathematics. I think that process is pretty interesting as well, but you may disagree.

[Anonymous No.12471133]

>>12468493
I've done pic related before college (except applications). What else should I do to get ahead of the curve math-wise?

[Anonymous No.12471137]

I like Sextus Empiricus, Hume, Nietzsche, and Camus. They keep the dogmatism down to a tolerable level -- epistemic dogmatism for the former two and moral dogmatism for the latter two.

[Anonymous No.12471139]

>>12471133
lmao, this is great.

[Anonymous No.12472700]

>>12471137
What do you mean those arent dogmatic? They're just retards who spout random opinions, without attempting to ground any of in solid epistemology or metaphysics (except hume of courseO, and who don't even really define their terms. Someone who actually isnt dogmatic would in my mind be someone like Kant, Wittgenstein or Russel. Or some of the postmodernists maybe like Focault or Deleuze. People who try to systematize what they're doing, and try to understand under what assumption their deductions hold and so on.