"Should math be a part of philosophy?"

Yes because that way you'll have philosophy classes and learn how to find arguments yourself.

>By that logic, no word is well-defined and you are a brainlet.
How does that follow? By what definition is "math" well-defined?

Basically it's how says it.

The decimal system we use and frame math around is entirely arbitrary, and likely based on the fact we have 10 digits.

Logic is a critical branch of philosophy, and merely describes objective causal relationships.

Math and philosophy are both wide-umbrella terms used to denote classes of axiomatic systems which are embedded within them. It's almost impossible to compare them on any kind of direct basis.

But once the notation and symbols of math are decided, you can't argue that
1 + 1 does not equal 2. Can you name any philosophical idea that everyone agrees on? If humans were non-existent, math would still be the same. But much of philosophy would go away, and what's left would simply be natural science.

You’re both wrong. The fact that we use a base ten numbering system and is emblematic of reality (as the Pythagoreans discovered) should show you how real God is. God exists because he created us with ten digits so we could discover the system that determines the world around us and the socuological phenomenon within it.

Yes, in the same fashion you described with the notion of math, even.

Once the notation and symbols of logic are decided, you can't argue that the argument;
Premise 1: P -> Q
Premise 2: P
Does not result in Q in the conclusion.

Philosophy, at heart, is an explanatory model for reality in a meta sense, whereas science is an explanatory model for reality in its content. There's a huge conflation of "what some old people once said about the nature of reality" with philosophy as a whole, but even a lot of philosophical commentary is logical in its basis, just perhaps false in its premises.

The study of how truth values to premises and their resultant arguments play out in a meta-mathematical sense is, for all intents and purposes, objective. That's not all of philosophy, though almost all of philosophy employs that framework.

Thank you user, I've seen the light. I must die now, to more quickly experience god's holy embrace.

really makes u think

You don't seem to know what philosophy means.
You realize that philosophy contains math and other branches of logic as well as the natural sciences, right?

>You realize that philosophy contains math
This is false.

Philosophy doesn't contain math but moreso it lays the groundwork for future mathematical work. Math presupposes the validity of certain laws, especially those pertaining to deduction and abstraction, and it is the task of philosophy to provide an adequate grounding of these laws in order to create a truly rigorous science (I mean science in the simple sense of a pursuit for general knowledge) in the strict sense. An analogy would be that philosophy lays down the conditions and foundations for any proper scientific work and science itself builds beautiful buildings atop it. The results of science may be beautiful, say like a medieval castle, but it still requires foundations.

An alternative way of stating this is that philosophy demarcates what makes something scientific in the general sense of the term. An analogy one can make is that philosophy is like a police officer that "polices" any claims to science by other disciplines. Fields of research are demarcated by philosophy and anything which doesn't pass the conditions of rigor, e.g. astrology, are labelled as pseudo-scientific. This is done through an elaboration of describing the laws and conditions of objective knowledge. In a sense, it has a maintaining function, perhaps a pedantically one, but nonetheless necessary.

The alleged conflict between philosophy and science is a silly Anglo fixation, which is a non-problem anywhere else in the globe.

Most of what I'm saying is drawn from Edmund Husserl. See "Philosophy as a Rigorous Science" for an extended treatment of the aforementioned themes. Veeky Forums posts are too short for topics such as this.

Corrections: ... an elaboration of the laws and conditions of objective knowledge.*

...a maintaining function, perhaps a pedantic maintaining function, but nonetheless a necessary one.*

Philosophy has no concept of rigor.

>Philosophy has no concept of rigor.
Neither does mathematics.

Have you even read the essay I mentioned? He specifically explains what it means for philosophy to be "rigorous".

No,

Math is based on proofs.

Philosophy is based on arguments.

Attached: 1519562575209.jpg (1280x845, 165K)

Mathematics is based on arguments as well, since most mathematicians do not write proofs in a rigorous sense (e.g. in Coq).

>god gave us 10 fingers to prove he exists and so we could do math

Makes sense

Take symbolic logic next semester doofus

rigor is the most important quality in philosophy, though it is often attempted in languages other than mathematics.
>PHD

Logic is an abstract science.

Philosophy is a branch of humanities.

Attached: 3431555415_a449fec52c.jpg (500x333, 101K)

I see you've only taken PHIL 101. Congratulations.

God also gave us 12 joints for the fingers on one hand which the Babylonians used to count to 60 and thus had a sexagesimal number system. Which is teh true nature of the universe???? :O

Attached: sexagesimal counting.gif (283x315, 4K)

Yep, he literally said
>Fuk dem nigras on 4chamz math be mad wack bich ngas
Bertrand Russell saw it.

>"Should math be a part of philosophy?"
What does that question even mean?

While sexagesimal systems do get me hot and bothered why not go all the way and make a duodecimal system where you can count to 144 on your hands?

>Be Me
>Come from /b/
>See this
"Wow, ya'll are pretty smart?!"
>Says i, a brainlet
>Quickly realize that you guys are shouting about retarded shit just on a different level.

No, math and philosophy set out to accomplish different things, you cant reduce one into the other.

wrong

I should hope not. Philosophy would be rather limited in what it could say if you could only speak rigorously.

Let me let you all in on a little secret, Veeky Forums.

Reductionism almost never works. Yeah, you know that shit Newton did? Basically one of a kind. Most of the time when scientists try they are utterly humiliated.

Consider, e.g., the 20th century attempt by physicists to reduce our understanding of chemical bonds to quantum mechanics. How well did that work out? It discovered whole new fields and contibuted greatly, but guess what, it didn't supplant many of the old chemical means of understanding. Far from it, it only showed how necessary chemistry is as a field.

Any question which every asks "will X subject be explained fully in terms of Y", assume the answer is no and move on. It's a bad question. You can gain insights and new ideas and methods from the attempt, but it's in vain.

As well with math and philosophy. Math can't be reduced to philosophy. It's a dumb question.

No it's not.

>No it's not.
The burden of proof is on you.