This may sound strange here, but has anyone majored in both math and philosophy?
I want to do a double major and those are the majors I like the most, but I haven't found much about it - a few pages like the german institute for mathematical philosophy or philosophy of mathematics.
Has anyone tried to do this? have you found a way to merge them together and apply what you've learnt in both?
thought that was house for a sec.
I'm in Econ and Math, with a philosophy minor. The biggest intersection is the obvious: logic. Using these logical skills in both qualitative (Reasonings to defend an argument) and quantitative (math proofs) fashions really helps you learn how to look at both kinds of problems in different ways and allow for different approaches to problems.
This may sound strange here but has anyone ever spent 10 years learning all the knowledge in the universe and then asking a boxer to fucking knock them down so that they immediately forget everything?
This may sound strange here, but has anyone ever gone to the gym for years to get really big arms to then ask a surgeon to cut them off?
Pretty much equivalent statements to yours. You want to learn the from the most useful and powerful knowledgebase, mathematics, and then you want to turn yourself into a useless emotionally and politically minded philosophy as to make your entire efforts pointless.
A much better choice would be to just kill yourself.
>and then you want to turn yourself into a useless emotionally and politically minded philosophy as to make your entire efforts pointless.
nobody said anything about politics
Why does philosophy trigger brainlets so much?
>nobody said anything about politics
>Implying that after the greeks philosophy did not become a politically driven 'feel good' field for morons
If you want to contradict this then you better be ready to give a logical explanation for why no issue in philosophy has ever been closed.
If you are going to be honest and admit that
>that's just how things are
then I will also ask you, what do you gain intellectually for participating in a contest where no rules are established and no way to distinguish a winner from a ruler exists.
Double major in mathematics and mathematics. Or at least do your second major on a science or even economics, I don't fucking know. Just do not waste your time with bullshit.
since socrates a large part of philosophy has been aimed at experts of disciplines and putting into question the basis for their knowledge and methods
I think it is obvious that a physicist is not going to be gracious if a philosopher ask them to fully define "physical law" or put into question their activity as scientists and physicists (given by the fact that some new fields of physics has been attacked by philosophers of science by being very much non-physics).
I won't say if that's a good or bad thing, but the reaction is normal.
Go watch the 90s indie movie 'Pi'. Once you have, never speak of mixing maths with philosophy again.
>If you want to contradict this then you better be ready to give a logical explanation for why no issue in philosophy has ever been closed.
philosophical skepticism has been closed for decades.
Mathematicians are autists.
Philosophers are autists.
None of them talk about anything remotely real, although both of their work have been used for science throughout history.
Still, you will have enough autism with just one of those majors. No need for more autism.
>philosophical skepticism has been closed for decades.
Okay, nice claim you have there. Lets fact check it
>en.wikipedia.org
>Schools of philosophical skepticism
>Pierre Le Morvan (2011) has distinguished between three broad philosophical approaches to skepticism
>three broad philosophical approaches to skepticism
If there are still different schoolfs of skepticism and by the word of a philosopher back in 2011 at least 3 different ways to approach it then that is not a closed issue.
After the Poincare conjecture was proven no one was like
>Well, that is one school of thought. I believe it is not true, even though you proved it.
It's about schizophrenia, not math.
read about bertrand russell
>After the Poincare conjecture was proven no one was like
>no one
Hard to say. There has been a few papers that say the real numbers are countable, even if the problem is closed. It wouldn't be entirely surprising that some mathematicians disagree, even if they are entirely wrong, with the proof.
Let's jump to another discipline, physics. Russell Humphreys has a PhD in physics, yet he still holds the earth is no older than 10 000 years old, is that problem still open?
Jason Lisle is another, he has a PhD in astrophysics, and write books about the evidence that exist to hold that the sun is 6000 years old, is the (considerable) young age of the sun something the scientific community still consider?
The point is that it judging the status of a problem solely based on the fact that a small number of people still hold that position is not a sensible thing to do.
I work in a philosophy department, and while it is true that books holding skepticism will be seen now and then, the traditional school has been by large dissolved since the publication of both Philosophical Investigations and On Certainty by Wittgenstein.
>Russell Humphreys has a PhD in physics, yet he still holds the earth is no older than 10 000 years old, is that problem still open?
Sounds like a geology problem to me
They know nothing about it.
>but I haven't found much about it - a few pages like the german institute for mathematical philosophy or philosophy of mathematics
you should find a whole lot more than that. the combination of mathematics and philosophy is old and widely known. look in SEP about philosophy of mathematics or logic
>They know nothing about it.
That's the one reason. The other one is that a lot of bullshit/nonsense runs under the name "philosophy".
Postmodern "philosophy" for example is nothing else but the purest form of bullshit there ever was and straight up "anti-scientific".
Sartre is one of the most well known "philosophers" of the 20th century although he's pretty much only talking highly elaborated nonsense.
It's really, really sad to see a bunch of great scientists like Kant and Wittgenstein running under the same name ("philosophers") as peacocks who were/are just masturbating with words they didn't/don't even understand.
Yeah sounds like the guy can do math and tell you how far a rock will fly in what density of air but he doesn't know where that air or the rock came from and will make his best guess but still tell you it's true
Double majors is stupid.
Math is difficult enough as it is. You're not a genius. Pick one and try to do well.
I considered doing it, but philosophy is worthless, honestly. Philosophy needs to suspend the scientific process in order to answer the big questions (note, not a correct answer, just an answer to the question with no evidence). The only purpose for majoring in philosophy is to help get into law school (it's surprisingly good for that), but if you're doing mathematics, don't bother because math is better for law school.
No, he's straight up lying to himself. The age of the earth is almost universally agreed upon. There is absolutely zero evidence that the earth is
Philosophy is dead. Just read the classics and move on.
>great scientists like Kant
>great scientists
>Kant
top kek
>Double majors is stupid.
They're not.
>double majors is stupid
>is
talk about stupid
nebular hypothesis
theory of winds
physical monadology
I did czech lit and physics
>Sartre is one of the most well known "philosophers" of the 20th century although he's pretty much only talking highly elaborated nonsense.
there isn't much truth in that
both heidegger and sartre (to talk about existentialism) wrote in a very technical and precise manner, many of the terms coming straight from husserl, founder of phenomenology, who introduced new word for new concepts just like a mathematician creates new definitions- this process was particularly similar in husserl because he was also a mathematician
I think one of the problems philosophy-laymen encounter is often related to a premise relatively common that has been mentioned here, namely, the idea that philosophy makes mo progress. If that were true, a person should be able to pick any philosophy book and understand it, and if he can't, it would be rightful to say that the author is obscure and deceptive, but this isn't the case and philosophy up to this point has been constructed upon the work f others philosophers. Sartre in particular, is very inaccessible unless you're in a lecture and you can ask questions and have a well-read professor in the long philosophical studies. In reality it doesn't happen that much, academic philosophers are experts in one area and are familiar with the parts of the texts that are of their concern,
I suppose Bertrand Russell is someone who worked in both fields. Or am I wrong?