[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 83 KB, 500x360, math-vs-philosophy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6386448 No.6386448[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

I have a question: witch came first or originated from another: mathematics or philosophy?
Opinions/arguments.

>HURR DURR MATH BOARD SO METH SUPPERIOR.
No biased faggets pliz

>> No.6386453

Hard to say, people have an intrinsic sense of quantity and space so you could argue that mathematics came first, but you could also argue that the systematic study of these concepts originated much later, after more general philosophy had been developed. Either way it's not like you can point to a date and say math was invented here.

>> No.6386456
File: 119 KB, 390x390, 1393697456082.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6386456

>Opinions
>No biased faggets pliz

>> No.6386472

>>6386456
probably am. English is not by native language. In my country opinions are not biased and changed during a conversation, and biased persona's comes in with his opinion, says what makes him think his opinion is great and leaves. So biased opinions are stupid and doesn't help solving an argument

>> No.6386474
File: 1.73 MB, 239x240, 1392501863170.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6386474

I'm sure philosophers would say philosophy for the simple fact that you can say philosophy = systematic thinking about something in a logical way.
So I will have to ask you what you mean by philosophy.

With math instead we are pretty much ok, numbers and geometry is where everything started and I think those concept are pretty old and really not related to philosophy at all.

>> No.6386478

>>6386453

>>math
>>invented

Math exists independent of people. Philosophy does not. So clearly math is forever.

>> No.6386494

>>6386474
well In my opinion as >>6386478 said philosophy is systematic thinking about people and stuff associated with them. Immanuel Kant said that "Who/what is human" is the most important philosophy question. (Sorry if its a bad translation of the question, because i'm translating it from my native language)

>> No.6386499

Philosophy preceded math and science. Both logic, which led to mathematics, and the scientific method, which led to science, were products of philosophy.

>> No.6386497

>>6386478
>Math exists independent of people.

"Exists" in what sense?

>> No.6386503

>>6386478

The belief that math and science exist independently of people is part of Scientism, and is wrong. Mathematics and science are cognitive constructs, with rules, structure, even a grammar of sorts. The relationship between two physical objects, or between two forces, is a relationship; it is not "numbers" or "formulae" or anything of the sort.

>> No.6386504

>>6386497
Earth has been the third planet from the sun for much longer than people have been on it. Even if you embrace creationism, it was a few days earlier.

>>6386499
Philosophy preceded the scientific method, I agree. But math and other properties science studies precedes people, which in turn precedes philosophy.

>> No.6386509

>>6386503
So how many eaths were there before someone counted? There are parts of mathematics that are constructs, axiomatic in nature. But the outcome is still a natural occurrence. The entity of math drives this, not the observer.

>> No.6386513

>>6386478
Mathematics is an abstraction we use to understand the universe. The world exists independently of us and behaves according to certain rules but the way we describe and understand these rules is not something that exists outside of our heads. Why is this so difficult to understand?

>> No.6386517
File: 744 B, 210x170, belnap logic.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6386517

>>6386448

I studied both, so I will give you my point of view:

That is an unanswerable question.
When the first humans were making fire, was this applied physics? Or chemistry?

All those scientific terms are rather blurred, at least when you look at the past: A medieval analytical chemist was also a magician, a philosopher, a religious mystic, a salesman..

It all boils down on the world and our differnt approaches of trying to understand it, and there are a lot of fields and methods, and they all have their place.

An empirist will use his trial and error.
Then a rationalist comes and says "fuck your experiments, you fail in drawing the right conclusions."
Then a deconstructivist comes and says "fuck your build up structures, you're cheating yourself."
Then an artist comes and says "Fuck your hollow words, you know nothing about aesthetical truths."
..and so on.

There is no "supreme art/science", and everyone who claims otherwise most likely doesn't have a clue about the things he looks down on.

>> No.6386518

>>6386513
The thing we are trying to understand when study math is called math, and it exists independently of people. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

>> No.6386540

>>6386518

Sorry but.. have you never heard of Goedel's incompleteness theorems?

"Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete."

So if math is "real", is our reality inconsistent or incomplete?

No, seriously:.
It has been discussed for centuries if numbers realy "exist" or not, and there is simply no solution for that.

But the nice things is:
It's completely irrelevant!

Math (and logic) is build on AXIOMS.
In other words: Math doesn't care about if it's "real" or not, it just a system of rules and implications that follow that rules.

If you want to APPLY math, you first have to make sure the axioms are fulfilled, THEN you can make statements.

>> No.6386556

>>6386540
Quantity exists and has always, numbers are a construct of that. What the fuck are you talking about?

>> No.6386561

>>6386556

He's talking about the developments in axiomatic set theory, which serve as the foundation to math's applications in the real world.

>> No.6386567

>>6386448
1+1=2 was known before "is gode real, wot is meening of life".

>> No.6386571

>>6386561
Philosophy has axiomatic properties as well, so does everything else. Math/Physics can exist without observation though, it always has, the fact that it's a tool doesn't mean anything. Math is the only thing that's solid in this universe.

>> No.6386579

>>6386556

prove it.

pro tip: you can't

>neo-platonian scum

>> No.6386580

>>6386478
>Math exists independent of people
You do realise we choose mathematical axioms, right? They are in a very large sense arbitrary.

Taking philosophy in its broadest sense it includes mathematics so the question is a bit silly really.

>> No.6386590

>>6386540
I have and t pissed Russell of and pretty much destroyed Analytic with the help of Quine sometime later. But that proves my point, not yours. We are incapable of completing math with our logic since math is bigger than our logic. Which is because it is independent of our logic, like I said earlier.
Also you should read Two Dogmas if you haven't.

>> No.6386588

>>6386579
>IF A TREE FALLS IN THE FOREST AND NO ONE IS AROUND TO HEAR IT, DOES IT MAKE A SOUND
As long as it still emits waves created by the speed rate of fall and pressure of impact, yes.
>YEAH, BUT DO WAVES EXIST WITHOUT SOMEONE OBSERVING THEM
Of course. Existing is outside of the perceived mind.

>> No.6386594

>>6386590
>math is independent of our logic
holy shit what the fuck i am reading are you retarded m8

>> No.6386604

>>6386567
I doubt that. Once consciousness came into play, I'm sure people were looking for meaning in life. It came before one rock(for hammering) plus one rock equals two rocks.

>> No.6386605

>>6386588
That's not the part I was referring to..


>>6386590
>We are incapable of completing math with our logic since math is bigger than our logic.

There is no universal logic. Instead there are many different logics, for example "three-valued logic" or "three-valued logic". Logic does only mean to use axioms and draw conclusions.

I could define "true = false" and this would be an absolutely valid logic. A rather useless one, because I would never get to any important conclusions with that axiomx, but still a solid one.

The map is not the territory.

>> No.6386606

>>6386594
I accept your ability to argue being reduced to name calling as an acceptance of defeat. It was my honor to educate you. You're welcome.

>> No.6386614

>>6386605
There is still a limit to what we can understand and logically justify, with any logic. The math of the universe has no such limit. Hence, incompleteness is a consequence of us, not the math. Seriously, read Quine

>> No.6386615

>Tfw people believe concepts can't exist outside of their perceived consciousness
Guess we created the universe too then. If you think hard enough, we should be able to breathe in the 'middle of space' without a specialized suit or station.

>> No.6386619

>>6386448
Philosophy, because it's inherently just making shit up without having to prove any of it is true.

>> No.6386622

>>6386615
My nigga.

>> No.6386633

>>6386615
If you can't tell the difference between existing objects (sound) and abstract concepts (a formula that describes the behaviour of sound UNDER SPECIAL CONDITIONS) I can't help you anymore, sorry.

>>6386614
>incompleteness is a consequence of us, not the math

No, this is not a matter of incompleteness by any means..

Let me give you an example:
To objects are next to each other. So there is a REAL distance between those two.
But if I want to measure that distance it becomes arbitrary:

Let's asumme I use the "discrete metric", then every object has the distance 1 (if it's not the same object). This is a logically correct way of measuring which can be used for things such as networks.

But I could also think in three dimensions and use the euclidean distance.

And I could also think in four dimensions and add "time" or "colour of the objects" as a dimesnsion..

There is no number or formular that is describing the reality. But I can think of formulas and axioms and use them as I like.

It's still not real, it's just a "game of thoughts".

>> No.6386639

>>6386633
The formula serves the math, the math doesn't serve the formula. Understand that first.

>> No.6386644

>>6386639

Listen, just reading a book by quine or something doesn't put you in the position to tell me "what to understand first".

As I told you, there is an (ongoing) debate about the question if numbers exist or not. You can tell me YOUR (= "not quines") OPINION (= "not facts"), and back it up by some ARGUMENTS ( = "not just claims") about that question.

If you fail in doing so (besides failing taking notice of my arguments) I see no point in discuss this matter any.

>> No.6386645

>>6386504
I don't think that's really "math".

>> No.6386647

>>6386644
>Quantity doesn't exist
You're going in circles here.

>> No.6386650

>>6386633
True. But each metric works by its nature. A nature that precedes people. These metrics are discovered, not invented.
So either choose the rules and discover the effect, or choose the effect and discover which rules get it for you.

>> No.6386651

>>6386504
In fact, that strikes me as being like saying that because the Sun had internal fusion reactions going inside of it, physics predates humanity as well.

If that is what you think, then you are confusing model with domain.

>> No.6386654

>>6386644
What you're arguing is "If I can change the names, they don't exist." Which is inherently wrong, because the fundamentals don't change and that doesn't make quantity and space thus math not exist.

>> No.6386655

>>6386644
I told you to read Quine, not him.
rekt though

>> No.6386659

>>6386645
>>counting isn't math

>> No.6386661

>>6386478
How does math exist independently?

>> No.6386663

>>6386513
Thank you. This is absolutely correct.

>> No.6386665

>>6386647

>quoting me with some stuff unrelated to my post
>still neo-platonian scum


>>6386650

No, it's the other way arround.
I think of a concept and choose some properties for this concept. Then I know that every conceptual model that has these properties has further properties.


>>6386654
No, the question is if "names" are anything more than names (=symbols).
Some people say so, some say not. There is no argument to proove one or the other thing.

>>6386655
What makes you think that I didn't already read quine and disagreed with him?

>> No.6386669

>>6386661
Because if all of humanity died off, and evolution brought us back again, no matter how different the world became, the same math would be discovered. As in if we took two things we could separate them as one and one other.

>> No.6386673

>>6386590(me)
>>6386665

I said if you haven't.

>> No.6386675

>>6386639
>The formula serves the math, the math doesn't serve the formula.
Oh, dear, this faggotry. How can you speak like some edgy poet about math and not be ashamed of yourself. Get some real arguments.

>> No.6386678

>>6386675
Is your major Philosophy?

>> No.6386679

>>6386669

So if I think of a unicorn and someone thinks of a unicorn in 1000 years, unicorns exist?

>> No.6386685

>>6386678
Yes.

>> No.6386687

>>6386513
So it's an abstraction. Meaning that it does not exist in any material sense.

But it exists independently of us?

Please square this circle for me. Exactly where should I look for this math you speak of it exists neither in the material world nor in our minds.

>> No.6386689

>>6386685
Figures.

>> No.6386691

>>6386687
Look around you?

You're confusing math with the concept of formulas.

>> No.6386693

>>6386691
No, you are confusing model with domain.

>> No.6386692

There is no clear distinction between the abstract and concrete. It makes as much sense to debate how long math has existed as it does to argue about whether or not a tree that falls in the forest when no one's around to hear it makes a sound. It's sophistry. Either you believe things exist outside of your immediate experience or you don't. Either way you act like they do and it doesn't fucking matter.

>> No.6386696

>>6386692
The distinction between abstract and concrete is pretty clear to me.

>> No.6386694

>>6386673

OK, I appologize for losing my contenance over the faggotry of this whole thread.

>> No.6386702

>>6386693
In this case, the model is the domain.

>> No.6386711

>>6386696
Are atoms abstract or concrete?

>> No.6386712

This thread gives me the creeps.

As I said before, there are a lot of pros and cons about the "existence" of numbers, as well as famous mathematicians/philosophers on each side.

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sfop0257/teaching/metaphysics2002/Handout17.pdf

http://www.bbalcerakjackson.net/uploads/2/4/5/9/24592437/easy_arguments_for_numbers_final.pdf

>> No.6386718

>>6386712
How many fingers do you have on your hands? How many toes on your feet?

>> No.6386720

>>6386665
http://www.livescience.com/871-ants-marching-count-steps.html
Ants count and have been around longer than people.

>> No.6386722

>>6386718
Some people think there is a difference between an "instantiation" of a quantity and "the quantity itself".

>> No.6386723

>>6386722
Then what do we use to define quantity if not numbers? Philosophy? Outdated.

>> No.6386724

>>6386711
Atoms are material. Numbers are not.

>> No.6386726

>>6386722
>HOW MANY FINGERS DO YOU HAVE ON YOUR HANDS?
>AS MANY AS YOU WANT THERE TO BE
K.

>> No.6386728

>>6386448
I find it interesting that a thread about the priority of mathematics versus philosophy has quickly turned into a thread about the philosophy of mathematics.

This would seem to indicate that philosophy is clearly prior in our thinking. Otherwise, we would be discussing the mathematics of philosophy.

>> No.6386727

>>6386718

Five. Why?


>>6386720

Not an argument if you look at it closer.

Everybody breathes, but is "breath" a thing of itself? No, it's just a difference in pressure which leads the air to float.

>> No.6386730

>>6386728

Touché.

>> No.6386731

>>6386727
Hands, with an S. Unless of course you have a missing limb. Which would explain your insecurity with math. You were also dumb enough to lose your limb, so there's that.

>> No.6386733

>>6386731

>implying calling me dumb is not a sign of insecurity

Let's say five fingers EACH.
Would that be OK for you?

>> No.6386736

>>6386735

depends on the base.

>> No.6386735

>>6386733
5 + 5 = ?

>> No.6386750

>>6386736
There's only one number there, because they're also both the same number.

Answer the question.

The base is obviously one. Even if it was two the divisible would be the same. There's no way you can argue differently, because it still comes up to 10.

>> No.6386764

>>6386728
http://xkcd.com/435/
This concept is at work here. Math can be seen as applied logic, which can be seen as applied philosophy, which can be seen as applied literature/art, which can be seen as applied sociology, which can be seen as applied psychology, which can be seen as applied biology, which can be seen as applied chemistry, which can be seen as applied physics, which can be seen as applied math, on and on ad infinitum.

>> No.6386766

>>6386750

Well Mr. " insecurity with math", I'm sorry, but in "base 1" there is no "5".

In Base 1 it would be:
11111 + 11111 = 1111111111

In Base 2 it would be:
101 + 101 = 1010

In Base 6 it would be:
5 + 5 = 14

In Base 16 it would be:
5 + 5 = A

>> No.6386772

>>6386750
If the equivalence relation is equality modulo some quantity then the answer would not always be represented as 10.

>> No.6386771

>>6386766
How many ones are there.

>> No.6386780

>>6386771

Do u even english?

>> No.6386781

>>6386772
Not represented as ten, but you can't ignore the remainder or the 'municipal' number.

>> No.6386784

>>6386780
You just argued that base 1 would be...

11111 + 11111 = 1111111111
There 10 ones after the equivalent.

20 ones all together, the divisible is still two.

>> No.6386789

>>6386781

Man, did you even read the links I posted here?
>>6386712

In the second link, the guy writes about how "writing the number down" is not a proof for the existence of numbers..

>> No.6386792

>>6386789
>Writing the number down is not proof for existence of numbers
>The guy
Like I said, you're arguing 'If I change the name, then they don't exist'. Then you're arguing existentialism. The core fundamentals for numbers will exist regardless of if you manipulate it for your own gain. Arguing that would be like arguing if volume exists. I'm done here.

>> No.6386796

>>6386784
There are 1111111111 1s, silly.

>> No.6386800

>>6386796
Now count them. (((:

>> No.6386812

>>6386792

You're not done, you just didn't get what I said earlier..

If writing something down was a proof for it's existence then I could write down "spaghetti monster" and it would exist.

Does a symbol exist?
Yes, in the way that information exists.

But that doesn't mean the information is the thing, the information is about.

Your logic is not very acurate, your argumentation skills are rather bad, you want to win at all costs and you can't make a distinction between a personal and a factual level.

I pity you.

>> No.6386813

>>6386800
I'm getting the feeling that you understand bases at all.

>> No.6386834

>>6386812
You're manipulating facts for your personal 'argumentation'.

Numbers are just a measurement of quantity, they exist in that regard. Please say that volume then doesn't exist so I can laugh.
>Le what is existing xD
The concept of a spaghetti monster exists, it exists in that regard. You're arguing whether fundamentals for ideas exist, while I'm saying if the fundamentals didn't exist we wouldn't have the ideas. Do yourself a favor and drop philosophy, your make the field look worse than it already does.
>>6386813
Count. Them.

>> No.6386840

>>6386509

"How many earths were there before someone counted?" is an abstraction. Numbers do not exist in the real world. There aren't 2's, 3's, and 3.1415's floating around out there. So "the number of objects 'X'" is not a thing, before or after the invention of mathematics; therefore, the existence of objects does not equal the existence of mathematics.

Also, you seem to be implying an incorrect part-whole ordering. 'Kicking a ball' is not football. 'Wearing tights and prancing about' is not ballet. You are confusing a subordinate category for the superordinate. 'Addition' is not 'mathematics'; it is part of mathematics, but the existence of counting alone does not equal the existence of mathematics, which requires axioms at the very least. So even after the creation of counting, we still don't have mathematics. It required a few concepts first, and those concepts are considered philosophy.

>> No.6386841

>>6386834
>Count. Them.
I didn't even read the thread. Just you being confused about bases.

That guy already counted it for you 4 times. 1111111111, 1010, 14, A.

>> No.6386844

>>6386813
All your base?

>> No.6386854

>>6386556
>Quantity exists and has always

Quantity has never existed and never will, at least the discrete variety (continuous quantity is more arguable). Two rocks are not "two rocks" until someone puts those two objects in the same category. Until then, they are independent objects. Taking it further, one could say they are the same continuous object until someone decides they are distinct from one another. "Uniqueness" requires only an infinitesimal difference, which means every object in existence is unique; it requires a linguistic construct overlaid upon the objects before they become "two rocks."

>When the first humans were making fire, was this applied physics? Or chemistry?

You're doing something funny with the word "applied" here. "Making a fire" is not science in the standard definition of the word. Even if you shoehorn "hypothesis" and "testing" to fit the example, you don't have replication in a scientific sense. No one is trying to disprove fire-making methods. Learning what works over time always requires 'fortunate accident' because of that. It's not a controlled study for the purpose of building a 'consensus body of knowledge'. 'Building a fire' is something done out of necessity.

>> No.6386863

>>6386840
>Quantity doesn't exist in the real world
>What are limits?
>>6386841
>0 is a number
I see where you're confused.
>>6386854
>Two objects aren't two objects
>Doesn't understand the term object comes from objective
No one is arguing whether they're two separate entities in their right, but put together they're two, whether it be 1 starfish and 1 dog.

>> No.6386880

>>6386478
Do you realize math is the STUDY something and if there's no one to study the studied thing, the activity is impossible.

>> No.6386882

>>6386880
The study of concepts, retard, the concepts still exist.

>> No.6386884

>>6386880
Also, philosophy doesn't conclude reasoning and observation.

>> No.6386885

>>6386882
>The concepts still exist.

Like the concept of infinity, i guess.

>> No.6386895

>>6386882
Does a concept exist in the absence of someone to understand it?

If so, in what sense?

>> No.6386902

>>6386885
Yup, and the concept of limits, as was mentioned in this thread. Mathematics utilizes both.
>>6386895
Because existence exceeds the perception of existence, I've already said this. Unless you want to talk about Solipsism, which doesn't use things like reasoning, more utilizes misunderstanding.

>> No.6386907

>>6386902
>Yup, and the concept of limits, as was mentioned in this thread. Mathematics utilizes both

Tell me one fucking thing in the physical universe that's infinite
Retarted faggot

>> No.6386915

>>6386907
>retarted
Existence itself. Come on, give me something harder.

>> No.6386932

>>6386902
So again, it what sense does it exist?

Not in a material sense, since it is a concept.

But also, not in a mental sense, since there is no mind that apprehends it.

So, yet again, in what sense can it be said to "exist'?

>> No.6386937

>>6386932
Because even 'nothing' exists. Again you're arguing perception of existence.

>> No.6386941

Just realized how self-centered some of you are. Are you even from /sci/?

>> No.6386946

>>6386937
No, nothingness does not exist. If it did, we wouldn't be here to talk about it.

>> No.6386949

>>6386937
Plato was discoursing on his theory of ideas and, pointing to the cups on the table before him, said while there are many cups in the world, there is only one `idea' of a cup, and this cupness precedes the existence of all particular cups.

"I can see the cup on the table," interupted Diogenes, "but I can't see the `cupness'".

"That's because you have the eyes to see the cup," said Plato, "but", tapping his head with his forefinger, "you don't have the intellect with which to comprehend `cupness'."

Diogenes walked up to the table, examined a cup and, looking inside, asked, "Is it empty?"

Plato nodded.

"Where is the `emptiness' which procedes this empty cup?" asked Diogenes.

Plato allowed himself a few moments to collect his thoughts, but Diogenes reached over and, tapping Plato's head with his finger, said "I think you will find here is the `emptiness'."

>> No.6386951

Math is superior when you're trying to solve the problem

Philosophy is super when you're trying to figure out what the problem is

>> No.6386957

>>6386946
You see how that is counter productive to your argument? Nothing still is, ergo it exists.

By saying 'Nothingness does not exist' you're arguing existence exceeds essence and yet again around your perception of existence. Living =/= Existing

>> No.6386961

>>6386863
>>What are limits?

Limits are relationships. They are always the 'continuous' type of quantity, too, which is messier than 'discrete' in this discussion.

>No one is arguing whether they're two separate entities in their right, but put together they're two, whether it be 1 starfish and 1 dog.

Your example is interesting: a starfish and a dog. You didn't cite inanimate objects. Living creatures are easier to prove are not 'a single, continuous, undifferentiable object', and the closer one gets to 'self-awareness', the easier it is to prove distinctness between entities. That burgeoning self-awareness recapitulates philosophy. It requires a full-fledged philosophy to create a true, axiomatic mathematics.

The argument I am making would make a very interesting, book-length discussion. We can't close all the holes in a few posts on 4chan, so at this point it seems like 'self-reflection on the topic' time, as far as I am concerned.

>> No.6386966

Math
>extreme usefullness. is the basis of every kind of science
>untold practical applications
>your computer wouldnt run without the use of math for example
>most pure of the subjects (most objectively true)
>best way to understand the laws of the universe


Philosophy
>fun to discuss among friends in a friendly manner
>not really that useful, but important in the regard that it is an attempt by humans to sort of dance and play around with the strangeness of their existence

philosophy is important, but math is objectively better

>> No.6386970

>>6386961
You're going to make me repeat myself.

Philosophy doesn't conclude observation and reason.

>> No.6386977

>>6386902
>Because existence exceeds the perception of existence

You do realize this is a philosophical position/concept/idea right? Does this concept you believe to be true exist independently of you having this idea? If it is, what stops philosophical concepts like it from existing independently of people?

To put it in another way, you do realize that for your claim "mathematical concepts exists independently of people" to work, your philosophical concept "existence exceeds the perception of existence" also has to be a concept that exists independently of people right?

You do realize that contradicts
>Math exists independent of people. Philosophy does not. So clearly math is forever.
right? Since you'd need to consider philosophical concepts like "existence exceeds the perception of existence" also being independent of people, and so philosophy is also independent of people.

Philosophize more.

>> No.6386982

>>6386977
See:
>>6386970

>> No.6386992
File: 355 KB, 400x348, AA1379642638446.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6386992

>>6386723
I have a philosophy; it is that philosophy is dead.

Discuss.

>> No.6387010

>>6386982
How about responding with actual rebuttals instead of mere claims?
I see >>6386961 , >>6386840 and >>6386854 being quality posts, I think you owe them better responses than the nonsense you've spouted so far.

And no one is claiming philosophy is the end all to reason and the need for observation. Your thinking is muddled by your unreasoned dislike for something you don't even understand.

>> No.6387007

>>6386957
This makes no sense.

Good luck.

>> No.6387018

>>6386992
I said outdated, not dead. Also not a philosophy.

All observations aren't philosophy, all philosophy are observations. They built around these constructs through lack of actual insight, I know saying 'everything is philosophy' makes you seem like you have the one up, but you really don't, because Math did the same. Though none of that means Philosophy precedes Math.

>> No.6387019

>>6386840
Wearing tights and prancing about = football.

>> No.6387022

>>6386764
>philosophy can be seen as applied literature/art
>literature/art can be seen as applied sociology

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

>> No.6387025

>>6387010
I don't dislike Philosophy. I dislike people like you who actually think they're being intelligent.

>Numbers don't exist

>> No.6387033

>>6386723
We don't define quantity with numbers, we represent quantities with numbers. Philosophy? Never outdated.

See it's easy to do bad philosophy, stop it.

>> No.6387037

>>6387033
>bad philosophy
>What are inferences?
Seriously, just shut the fuck up.

>> No.6387041

>>6387025
>Another response with zero substance whatsoever.

I think we can all stop here, you've showed no actual interest nor knowledge or insight about the topic.

>> No.6387050

>>6387041
Because Philosophy, like I said, is outdated.

Pressing generalizations everywhere, while not understanding that reasoning and logic are more than Philosophy. You actually think Philosophy rules the world, when Philosophy really just waits on it.

>> No.6387053

>>6387041
nobody did. Everybody is fighting over which is superior.

>> No.6387071

>>6387050
>You actually think Philosophy rules the world, when Philosophy really just waits on it.

You are correct here, anon. Philosophy waits on the world, this world. The world we perceive but is actually a computer simulation in the dream of a higher being.
PS: guess you'll have to prove the above wrong before you can continue in your certainty of knowledge/truth. Before you begin your proof you might want the higher being to grok you some epistemology so you can get that pesky problem of truth/how do we know anything/a priori/a posterior problem out of the way first. I'll... wait...

>> No.6387074

>>6387071
You don't know that, so don't make the claim?

Try dealing with what we know.

>> No.6387077

>>6387071
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the only evidence I see here is for you being a complete toolbox.

>> No.6387090

>>6387050
>Because Philosophy, like I said, is outdated.
>generalizations everywhere

That aside, I went over the thread again and I couldn't see any post arguing concretely why philosophy is outdated, all I see are claims. I also couldn't see how you inferred I don't understand "that reasoning and logic are more than Philosophy" or how I "actually think Philosophy rules the world" from posts against you.

Yet here you are accusing us of gross generalizations.

>>6387053
Again, I see some quality posts >>6386961 , >>6386840 and >>6386854 which does not appear to be using fighting words like the anon who wrote >>6387050 does.

>>6387074
I believe that's precisely his point.

>> No.6387094

>>6387077
Time does not exist. Doesn't take an extraordinary argument to see tat.

QED

>> No.6387095

>>6387090
Math deals in what is known and known concepts that are concrete. You can dismiss them all you feel like, but they're there. Math feeds those concrete observations and create formulas for insight, but the Math was always there.

>How do we know anything
Don't even.

>> No.6387097

>>6387094
If its not time (which is also just a measurement of passing moments), then what is it, please let us know. All knowing god.

>> No.6387102

Math is a tool for science.

>> No.6387114

>>6386517
I like this answer a lot. The field of mathematics didn't exist in the neolithic age, but our ancestors at the time most likely used maths, even if they didn't know they were using a mathematical system as a model for everyday stuff.

>> No.6387118

>>6387114
The sundial for example.

>> No.6387120

>>6387095
We know your position, you don't need to repeat it. No one is dismissing anything or resorting to baseless accusations like what you're doing, I believe we have raised questions to your claims and found it lacking, and we're still waiting for a well reasoned response from you.

Again, you show no interest to participate in the discussion and I think the lack of it is revealing of your ineptitude.

>> No.6387128

>>6387120
If you have something and it's gone the next minute, what do you have then?

>> No.6387126

>>6387120
He's a troll. Stop now.

>> No.6387157

>Can't even answer a simple question based on proper diction
>You have something and it's gone the next minute
>What do you have then?
>Nothing
>Nothing doesn't exist
>Diction doesn't exist
Then why are you using the English language? Or communicating at all?
>Diction is philosophy

>Person steals your wallet
>No longer there
>HOW CAN YOU KNOW HE STOLE IT, IF IT NEVER EXISTED
These are logical inferences, not a Philosophy.

Jaiden, pls. Done here now. Goodnight.