What are the flaws with philosophical writing? Where does philosophy meet its limits? Is philosophy even valid?

What are the flaws with philosophical writing? Where does philosophy meet its limits? Is philosophy even valid?

>What are the flaws with philosophical writing?
You can't prove it

>Where does philosophy meet its limits?
Your imagination

>Is philosophy even valid?
No

>What are the flaws with philosophical writing?
This is a philosophical question addressed by many philosophers.

>Where does philosophy meet its limits?
So is this. It has no limit though, because philosophy pertains to life.

>Is philosophy even valid?
As valid as life.

This probably does not immediately address your question but I think it is worth noting.

I am currently studying mathematics in undergrad but I like to always take some sort of creative class, usual a kind of visual art or poetry. This puts me in contact with a lot of students I would otherwise not meet, philosophy majors among them.

Maybe I have a gross misunderstanding of what it means to study philosophy but I'm always surprised at the reactions of philosophy students to the idea of math. It terrifies or disgusts them. From this I might assume that they either do not understand philosophy, do not understand math, or I am just as clueless.

Now I know some undergrad is not representative of any field, and philosophy professors are always receptive, if maybe unappreciative to the idea of mathematics.
But anyways I'm not sure what this says but I'd take it as supporting what the has been said ITT. My own impressions of a large amount of philosophical writing — that is not what would be considered classic or whatever — is that it is poor writing expressing ideas that are either insufficiently proven or cannot be proved at all.

So basically what said.

how are you going to tackle an entire field of study

that's akin to asking what are the flaws of earth science

>flaws of earth science
DUDE ROCKS AND SHIT LMAO

earth science is inherently flawed... it's about rocks

>What are the flaws with philosophical writing?
name a peice

>Where does philosophy meet its limits?
depends on how much you take to be philosophy

>Is philosophy even valid?
this doesn't seem to mean anything

>>What are the flaws with philosophical writing?
>You can't prove it

>math

That's like asking someone to ""prove"" math. Prove what? What about math? The proclamations it makes? Obviously if you set the rules up such that 2+2=4 then 2 plus 2 will equal 4, but that's just a system of your own design which itself isn't going to be ""proven"". All you can do is say something happens to model reality well and in a useful fashion. If philosophy majors have contempt for you, it's probably from seeing you throw around words like "proof" willy-nilly, or not understanding that things like philosophy have to be read through as cannons, unlike math where you're usually just told what works.

nice matching 88's though

Philosophy is valid for those who find genuine meaning and an adaptable understanding of certain viewpoints.

>Obviously if you set the rules up such that 2+2=4 then 2 plus 2 will equal 4, but that's just a system of your own design which itself isn't going to be ""proven"".

Yet again we have someone who does not know and does not want to know anything about mathematics. Everything in mathematics can be traced back to a handful of axioms. Indeed, just about anyone who has studied math has at some point begun with such axioms and proceeded to obtain and verify results that are already known and accepted.

And if you would say something like "Well why should we believe the axioms?" then you would disqualify yourself from any meaningful discussion. We all need a floor to stand on. And mathematics is extremely honest and aware of that floor.

>things like philosophy have to be read through as cannons
Ah, so to study philosophy I should just accept texts that I am told are important?

>Is philosophy even valid?
that's a philosophical question, faggot

And of course I don't mean to turn a discussion on the validity of philosophy into one about the wonders of mathematics, it is just that in my own limited personal experience, the negatives of philosophy are the postives of math.

It's as valid as the bible

>so to study philosophy I should just accept texts that I am told are important?
Replace philosophy with math, and texts with axioms

But user, an axiom is very unlike any complete text.

Consider the axiomatic statements at the beginning of Euclid's Elements, and thus, the foundations of Euclidean geometry:

1.) It is possible to draw a straight line from any point to any other point.
1.) It is possible to extend a line segment continuously in both directions.
3.) It is possible to describe a circle with any center and any radius.
4.) It is true that all right angles are equal to one another.
5.) It is true that, if a straight line falling on two straight lines make the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, intersect on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles.

Page 10 bump so more people can see this and maybe start a discussion

That's correct.
(But then you can always get into Einstein who thought that Euclidean geometry is only true conceptually and not in nature. It is a product of perception.)

Funny because there are some philosophers like Badiou who are basically fetishists of mathematics

I think he meant that the texts provide a similar floor to stand on. Of course these texts don't contain axioms or dogmas, but instead expose you to the wealth of thinking preceding your own. This is extremely important as philosophy mainly deals with the rough edges of theories explaining our world. A good philosopher should always strive to show other thinkers these uneven and uncomfortable edges of our expirience.

I find it weird that a mathematician would obsess over proof so childishly. Mathematics is one those fields where the nececity of multiple explanative models has been understood for a while. You really should read Jaakko Hintikkas essay on gödel. It illustrates the connections between philosophy, logic and mathematics well.

>Obviously if you set the rules up such that 2+2=4 then 2 plus 2 will equal 4, but that's just a system of your own design which itself isn't going to be ""proven""
Lol nonsense dude. So according to you, if all the worlds mathematicians and physicists got together one day and decided that 2+2=5, that all our machines would stop working and the all buildings would fall down? That is so retarded. Mathematics exists outside the physical universe and outside the minds of humans. You should have a read of a pop-science book from the early 90's called "The Mind of God" by Paul Davies, you can get it in Pengu paperback even.

>if all the worlds mathematicians and physicists got together one day and decided that 2+2=5, that all our machines would stop working and the all buildings would fall down?
obviously if you also coded the machines to adapt to this they would calculate badly and wouldn't function properly anymore yes this is rather obvious
I haven't even read any posts in this thread but you sound like a moron

Would all the buildings fall down as well?

Don't you know that there are different axiom systems in math. There is no monolithic MATH out there. All these different system relate to our reality in different ways.

Would you do algebra without knowing what these symbols mean:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
+
-

?

Or would you rather learn the fucking language and stop being an ass?

Basic arithmetic such as 2+2=4 is used in building construction, so how is your invoking of "different axiom systems" relevant?

>Is philosophy even valid?

TAINT NATCHRULL

WE DONT NEED NO GODDERN DAMN KNOWLEDGE LOVERS ROUND HERE

What the fuck is draw, straight, line, from, any, to and point?

For all you know, he understands Wittgenstein perfectly, he just doesn't know how to put it in words relevant to you.

>We don't cotton to strange Chinaman with no sense of self who stand secretly by for indeterminate amounts of time.

>Is philosophy even valid?

I feel qualia I would wish to continue and repeat when I believe I know something due to my preconceived notions that knowing things is good.

The intractable right answer to this exact phrase is "yes."

For example the euclidian geometry commonly used in engineering and construction holds up only in macro scale. In reality as described by the special relativity the fifth axiom of euclidian relativity is not true. I think this illustrates the necessity of different axiomatic systems as they only intersect reality instead of completely describing it. Wikipedia skimming is not the best way to learn, but I would recommend you read up on the different fields of mathematic study quicly. In the end mathematics has very little to do with everyday calculations you might associate it with.

>mathematics exists outside the minds of humans

taste the pain

2+2=4 is a definition, if you change it to, say, 2+2=5, you'd have to redefine arithmetic completely.