Comment on Theories on Theories

• lemonwood@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  What do you actually think it’s philosophy and what do you propose instead? How do you know your “tools” are better? Better by which criteria? Why those and not others? Even just attempting to answer any of these questions is doing philosophy. You can’t escape it. Framing philosophical questions in the language of say, set theory, like Russel did, dosn’t answer them. It’s just using another language. The Vienna Circle thought (inspired by Wittgenstein) that using a formal language would make the answers perfectly clear. And the one who refuted them, proofed them wrong, was no other then the one they admitted the most, Wittgenstein himself. No one will take your ideas seriously, if you don’t engage with this history first. I’m not saying it’s pointless or stupid, it might well be worthwhile. You just have to do it first or end up embarrassingly chasing around the first idea that pops into your head. Like “I feel sure about my answers in a math test and unsure about my essay in philosophy class, that’s why math is the best and philosophy is stupid” this is the infantile, level your understanding of both philosophy and math is at currently. Or maybe it isn’t, but it sure seems this way, since you haven’t clearly articulated you position, nor made any attempt to formulate an argument for them. Not using normal language and not using mathy language.

  source

  • pfried@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Better by the only criteria that matters. Once something is proved, everybody will agree to it given enough time to examine and question the proof. Once someone makes a mathematical proof, the philosophical arguments are thrown on the trash heap.

    source