Hear people talk all the time about how enlightening math and logic is

math is fantasies constrained by the fantasies of rules of inference

most professional mathematicians probably wouldn't even be able to name all ZF axioms
just because we can encode mathematics in them doesn't make them fundamental to the way people think about mathematics.

kek

There's no meaningful true statement/theorem you can make that doesn't necessitate some sortof assumptions/axioms.

>There's no meaningful true statement/theorem you can make that doesn't necessitate some sortof assumptions/axioms.
This is a meaningless notion.

>learns all truths require assumptions about the nature of truth
>doesn't find it enlightening
think harder, user

I hate ZFC, most of them aren't even axioms, their more like definitions.

It's not about blind faith. Mathematics doesn't seek to display fundamental truths, but displays useful truths given certain assumptions.

You're looking at it the wrong way. Look at what these axioms can build - what can yours do? All mathematical truth begins with "if", deal with it.

>Recognizing truth is conditional and clearly defining the conditions you're working in terms of up front is a bad thing.
Get back to your fry hopper, wagie.