Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:... It is much better than faieries, I agree. More useful for one thing, but it reflects nature in human interested ways, It is apriori, not aposteriori.

Never been to happy about these terms. Are you saying that maths is a Kantian type category? Why is it not built upon experience from the world, you get circles in pools from rain, spiders webs show straight lines, as do claw marks. I accept that symbols are ours but maths appears at source to be the language for describing objects. We counted using heterogeneous sets once, we made right angles with rope and chain, a distance was how far we walked, etc. Not arguing that its not apriori when proving its own theorems, just the idea that it was not experience that gave it its grounds. Just as Logic is entailed by there being objects and states of affairs, why is Maths not the same?

chaz wyman wrote:You don't get maths from experience. If you were not taught it as a system you would not simply find it in the world. You seem to be confusing the object with the conception of it.

If you look closely at a spider's thread you will find that it is made of molecules - not a continuous straight line. It also has depth- which a straight line does not. The line is an abstraction for reasons of measurement.
I'm not sure what else I can offer you....

As for Kant - I don't think he has a monopoly on these terms.
Logic is the same as maths. It is a system that unpacks linguistics, and renders it to reason. It is an abstract system. But I see no reason to assume that the universe is written in maths or logic. These are human ways to help understand them. In the human realm they are part of experience, but take the humans away and the universe abides without logic or maths.

Arising_uk wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:You don't get maths from experience. If you were not taught it as a system you would not simply find it in the world. You seem to be confusing the object with the conception of it.

If you look closely at a spider's thread you will find that it is made of molecules - not a continuous straight line. It also has depth- which a straight line does not. The line is an abstraction for reasons of measurement.
I'm not sure what else I can offer you....

Could be, depends upon which objects and conception we're talking about. My take is your claim is that Maths is not a historical development from the experience of us being a perceiving object in a world of objects. At base Maths is number and there's lot of objects, ten digits for a start. Before the written symbols I guess set counting was popular. At the right distance webs have sorts of close geometrical shapes to provide the ground for the drawn constructs of line, curves, polygons. Rain on still water shows circles endlessly.

Rain does what it does to pools of water - but it aint circles. The motion effected is far more complicated that a circle, as each perimeter is actually the crest of a wave, made up of molecules expressing complex energetic forces, and seemingly producing something incommensurable that has baffled science and philosophy; the eternal paradox of the particle and the wave. The existence of ripples on a pond is part of reality, but the maths can only describe it.

As for Kant - I don't think he has a monopoly on these terms.
Logic is the same as maths.

However - I should mention that Russell tried his whole career to prove that and failed.



It is a system that unpacks linguistics, and renders it to reason. It is an abstract system. But I see no reason to assume that the universe is written in maths or logic. These are human ways to help understand them. In the human realm they are part of experience, but take the humans away and the universe abides without logic or maths.

I don't disagree but the thing for me is, does it unpack linguistics? I accept Logic is based in language and unpacks the declarative proposition and maybe a couple of other things, like symbolism. But we know the failure of trying to give maths a solid ground in logic and the insights it gave(buggered if I truly understand them). So maybe maths is one of those things logic can't talk about but can only be pointed at, as its rooted in a world of objects in the same way logic is, i.e. if there are objects and states of affairs then there is Logic and Maths? And this would be the case even if there were no perceiving objects, just no-one to know about it.
So its not that its written in the maths or logic but whatever it is, is a state of affairs and objects, so it has to be be modelled in these systems?

spike wrote:... To be logical and reasonable about a subject one has to approach it with a sense of detachment, without getting emotional.

For it to be logical all parties must agree, or reasonably allow, to the truth of the axioms, for deduction to be of any use to a subject.

spike wrote:This thread asks, "What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?"

The basis, I would say, is curiosity, skepticism and the desire to find a convincing, overarching explanation. To be logical and reasonable about a subject one has to approach it with a sense of detachment, without getting emotional.

spike wrote:Ak:

Why should they explain it to you? Or at all?

This is the arrogance of this forum and from monitors like you.

The Jesus Head wrote:I agree with your opinion here.

Arising_uk wrote:

The Jesus Head wrote:I agree with your opinion here.

You would as you have some utopian fantasy that forums such as these are democracies of some kind.

Do you have a subscription to the magazine? If not then you have no grounds to stand upon as you are a free-loader.

Arising_uk wrote:Why not?

Given that a forum costs and part of that cost is presumably paid for from those who subscribe to the magazine.

chaz wyman wrote:Tell that to your Doctor next time you visit him.
Whist you are in the waiting room tell that to the children their that have never paid a penny in tax.

Arising_uk wrote:Or at least, should they not think twice before complaining about something they do not support? It reminds me of those who can't be bothered to vote or at least spoil their ballot paper who moan about the Govt all the time.