Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by ProCop, Dec 9, 2003.
What merit have you made to qualify you to say so?
Try your empty attacks with fools.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
well you batter away any counterstatements with arrogance and a self rightuous attitude. im still waiting for you to show me that you know anything about math or science. if you do this then maybe your claims of their ease of mastery will have some merit. until then it sounds like you are just trying to justify to other people that you are smart. i am by no means convinced of that.
i had to wade through the annals of past though during my scholarly years and i found that philosophers (past at least) are the most insufferably jumped-up petty people that ever lived. really they experienced and thought about nothing more important than a serf who grew potatoes, they just rendered it in pompous language. thats not to say there is no worth in what has been written, but i hav enever known a man who has become truly learned to have really found out any truths for himself; all he has found out is that the spectrum of knowledge is very wide. it seems to me now that knowledge does not enrich a man, it just exposes him to more sadness. most smart people i know are sad, actually...
how the hell do they know what someone like hegel's iq was? was there someone around to measure it back then?
If you got eyes, you can see I made points about math already. If you disagree with my point, then point out what is wrong with any point and back your word with facts and logics.
Since you never mention any specific point except for making empty statements, I don't know how to argue with empty accusation except for ingnoring it.
What can be called proven knowing math in your eyes? Why don't you do it first?
reality and the universe can be described using math and science. that can not be said for philosophy. if you have eyes check out that you havent demonstrated any thing showing you even understand why people study math and science. the fact that you dont see their importance shows me that you have very little understanding of them. if you said anything worthy of quoting, i would do so back to you, unfortunately though, your arguments against math/science have held no water.
Dapthar:Quote/Ok, so I don't get the point you're driving at. Would you mind clarifying it? What is the relevance of the lack of young Philosophers?/
Because it is not that easy for young people just like we don't see much old football players.
this is ridiculous. age is totally irrelevent. what if it was just when you get older you get set into a mold and your creativity suffered. it could also be that these young scientists were some of the most brilliant people to have ever lived. they had insight. they approached a problem at a new angle. there are tons of explanations. what if it took philosophers all their life to come up with something because they were stupid and it took them that long to put anythng together? that explanation follows just as logically as yours does.
Dapthar:/Quote/It also makes accomplishment of any result that could be considered significant nigh impossible as well, which was one of my earlier points./
Difficulty cause impossibility. yes. No one has ever comes up with a complete success one till now, but we have some great attempts worth of examing.
Dapthar:Quote/Without a well-established set of ideas that are assumed to be true, logic is essentially useless. See my earlier example with the system where 1 + 1 equals 3./
you still can apply logics of what ever kind but no use garanteed in reality.
which matches with what dapthar said, that logic is essentially useless
Dapthar/Quote/No, it doesn't. But since Philosophy utilizes language instead of symbolic logic, it inherits all of the flaws inherent in language itself, the vagueness, the paradoxes, etc.
Language is a tool to express ideas, not one to examine them with, e.g. one builds a circuit with completely different tools then one uses to examine it with. Why? Construction tools are generally not suited for diagnostics, and language is no exception to this assertion./
Any expression of thinking uses the tool of language, but just different kind of languages in different professins. Math language is composed of symbols with some amount of words too. Can you define the meaning of a symbol with a word? Any concept without a word?
Engineers use drawings as their prime language, but can you teach engineering without a word? Can they work without a word?
Language of word is a general tool in expression and philosophy deals with generalization, that is why. Not because a word is less efficient, unclear and inferior in expression.
We do not use language as the only tool, also check facts and logics.
Dapthar/quote/That was not my intention. My aim with the large blue text was to bring main ideas to other posters who may be skimming the thread in hopes of drawing more minds into the discussion. All of this was clearly explained in my note, which you apparently skipped or paid no heed to./
I am really supprised that the blue part is your main point!
i think philosophy is a much more artistic disciplin than mathematics. math appeals to rigid thinkers, which technical philosphy does perhaps to..but a broad thinking philosopher will have a deeper understanding of things than someone who thinks in purely mathematical terms. mathematic thinkers seem to only be able to work within set perameters -which they excell in - but going beyond that they struggle.
boombox i will contend that you are very much wrong in stating that mathematicians are limited to rigid, uncreative thought. if what you said is true, then we will never have any progress in math or science for taht matter. many mathematicians are also theoretical physicists. the new math that these great minds disover often lends itself to new break throughs in physics. hard scientists often get classified as being uncreative or over analytic. those who do this classifications very often arent aware of or have any understanding of these fields. could you call einstein uncreative? special relativity and general relativity are such outrageous concepts. there is no way that an uncreative person could even conceive of these things. im sure most people haev seen "beautiful mind." could he be called rigid? the math that professor nash formulated has dramatic and outreaching implications. he did win a nobel prize in economics for the implications of his work after all.
richard feynman is another example. he is arguably one of the most brilliant people to ever live. he was hugely mathematical. he was an accomplished artist as well. he pretty much excelled in everything he did. he won a nobel prize for his work in quantum electrodynamics. to even have the simplist understanding of the most basic quantum mechanics, one cannot be rigid. the concepts are so unusual that they can shatter worldviews.
there is a famous saying in physics about theorists, if you re not failing at least 50% of the time then you arent being creative enough.
you will contend this will you? when are you planning this? let me know because i sure wouldnt want to miss the even.
actually i agree with you. but i didn’t actually say that math is limited to rigid thinkers. what i was getting at is that thinkers who cannot or will not see the world beyond mathematical terms are very nescient. of course many people employ math as part of a more elaborate way of seeing things. like descartes did. thats very useful. it just seems to me that the sort of people that excel in math are *usually* rigid thinkers. i dont know why that is.
Dapthar/quote/I should have stated that "physical reality is no longer a concern of Mathematics", since that is what I meant. I recognize that the concept of a number arose, in part, from physical reality, but physical reality has not been a concern of Mathematics since then./
Mathmen paint pictures of the world using symbols and formulas, the pictures may reveal the truth of the world or not. The painters do not paint for fun of painting but expressing their view on the world. Otherwise they are useless as you said.
well im pretty sure i just did contend it and supplied reasoning and examples. there you go.
there is also a huge difference between getting an A in your math classes and being a mathematician as i have stated in different words before.
Dapthar/quote/Please clarify. The only relevant prior reference I see is that of language being the tool of Philosophy, rather than symbolic logic, but, that does not seem to shed light on what you are referring to as my assumption or my error./
Math uses symbols as its prime language with logics behind does not mean symbolic language is a better one. If the real world can be simplized in such a way, the phi-man will not hesitate and has no problem to use a symbolic set of expression. Just becaues of the complexity not the easiness which prevent them from doing so.
Upon review of the posts in this thread, I've decided that it's become a horribly efficient waste of my time. I am aware of the irony of discussing the Philosophy of Mathematics, and the fact that, not surprisingly, this discussion has become futile. Unless someone makes some further remark that I feel warrants a response, I will no longer be posting in this thread.
That does not seem compatible with your blue part, the main point.
Separate names with a comma.