(untitled)

In the public consciousness there is this notion that knowledge is like a line segment, scaled by "purity", with one end being STEM, with Pure Mathematics at the absolute top of abstraction and truth, while on the other end there are the humanities, with fields like Philosophy and Sociology, that are "fuzzy" and "subjective." Exactly like the XKCD comic. However, at the highest levels of abstraction, Math essentially becomes Philosophy, and to be exact Philosophy has to become like Math. There is an "one-point compactification" of this line segment that turns it into a circle, and the point that links Mathematics and Philosophy is, of course, Formal Logic. So far, nothing really new and interesting. But I have been wondering, if Mathematics and Philosophy are not so far apart and both at their peak form represent abstraction and truth, then what is at the antipode of the circle? Something that is both numerical and social, but that is ultimately deceiving and grounded? My best guess is Marketing: it disregards the theoretical aspects of Philosophy and Math, focusing on studies of applied Psychology and Statistics instead. Its ultimate goal is the opposite of discovery and research, as it intends to deceive, advertise and propagandize. Of course, this is just a simplified model of knowledge, but what do you think?

>>96758 I am ESL King and do not know what an antipode is, but I'm guessing it's the opposite side of the circle. In that case it would be the middle of the line, chemistry/physics. But the opposite of abstraction (philosophy) and truth (math) would be two fields, not one. also philosophy as the study of abstractions (instead of questions or truth) doesn't seem right somehow. but okay, if math-philosophy is abstraction-truth then the question would be what field studies exclusively the opposite of abstraction (practicality, empiricism, matter) and what field studies the opposite of truth (lies), and do they sort of flow into each other like math and philosophy does. and there are many answers, and they do not make a circle (as far as i have thought). So this line-circle model doesn't work as a model of knowledge/fields of study as soon as complexity is introduced. hope this helps ;)

Religion, specifically the KJV Bible. That fits your query exactly, a direct connection to truth from truth. Or language itself - the communication and understanding of supposedly pure fields is dependent on our grasp of language.

imo philosophy may be even purer than mathematics if you consider maths to be a subset of metaphysics but idk if that's a view that most people share to answer your question i think that the entire field of economics fits, it hinges on whatever the current system is with little to no basis in reality, and in return the system hinges on economics to stay afloat, so it's basically an isolated circuit

But maths is just applied esotericism.

>>96777 I strongly disagree as esotericism refers to the patterns some brains tend to generate due to certain archetypical traits.

>>96761 I would have to give it more though but I understand what you are saying

Math and philosophy are intertwined (and all other subjects of course). The intention is dependent on the user. Statistics is the impossible key to unlocking everything and nothing. It is used to uplift and destroy humanity. Statistics quite literally relates to all dimensions, it is ingrained in everything if you choose. It is nature and man. You may not even believe the existence of these numbers. The simplicity of the Emerald Tablet is equal to that of a normal distribution with an equal amount of complexity. Om: the sacred formula, the divine unity - is exactly what math is.

>>96758 Philosophy Could be as rigorous as mathematics, but it very obviously isn't Philosophers often rely on things like emotion and intuition to determine truth, and rarely if ever produce findings that are only interesting for the fact that they are undeniabley true Also, the circle cannot be completed, because most of mathematics has no application. It is a goal in an of itself

>>97592 You betray your ignorance of analytic philosophy as well as advanced mathematics. Some analytic philosophers such as frege and carnap were more rigorous than most mathematicians. >Philosophers often rely on things like emotion and intuition to determine truth One could say the same about mathematics. There are very few mathematicians who are interested in writing completely formal mathematics, and even those who do make emotional, intuitive arguments for the truth or falsity of different axioms (do you accept the axiom of choice? Do you accept the law of the excluded middle?). Some mathematicians, especially topologists, make intuitive arguments all the time, because they have come to trust their intuition. The difference between philosophers and mathematicians is that mathematics has a clearly proscribed boundary for what kind of knowledge it is meant to be about. Philosophy engages with questions that mathematics alone cannot.

everything correct that has use even philosophies should be able to be proven or demonstrated with math and science inside the testing grounds of what people call sociology. i dont actually believe this but I dont have a good argument against it, i might be very attatched to marxism but if marx's predictions dont occur in the circumstances he said they would I can try to sit there and change the words to show the circumstances of today arent actually the circumstances he was talking about but at the end of the day it wont change that its demonstrably useless. I could tell you about how dialectical materialism is actually very practical for erm say analyzing history, but what does this analysis actually produce hell what does any analysis of history actually produce. Imagine for a second that we find out through science and studies that studying history in totality does not actually save us from repeating it and we are only saved from repeating something for as long as this trauma in the brain from whatever incident that we can measure is still being passed down to the kids and the grandkids of the people it happened to. And imagine we find out objectively that its always no more than 3 generations and after that the holocaust or whatever exists in the minds of people as something abstract and unemotional and not real and thus without any emotional weight at all produces 0 action towards or against another holocaust. I think its a likely imagining or a case you could make from the hyper rational camp and you could probably make it about art or philosophy or whatever else too, because anything that can demonstrably shown to have material use becomes the domain of math and science. However one thing I can intuitively demonstrate as to why no math and science are not the purest forms and the only thing we should be relying upon to describe our world, is that math and science is very f ucking boring. If you dont find it boring its because you do it as a hobby or for work and in both instances when hobby time ends or work time ends you get to put it down and retreat back to accepting things as fluid and confusing. also absolutely no one actually lives in a world thats sum totality is the same as it broken into tiny pieces. In the moments you do its called a psychotic break and you cant return to baseline without a bunch of very unscientific realizations and attempts to grab at various things and ground yourself again. Meaning in a kind of reverse of the way philosophy is often useless in producing material results and actionable predictions, science and math are conpletely useless to existing and experiencing the world. You arent and you wont ever use science and math to make 90% of the decisions that matter most in your life even if we get to a point where it can describe literally everything and consequently science and math will always, (even if we prioritized rationality above all else culturally) be more boring and less compelling then most things. It doesnt really make any difference if one day those life decisions you arent strictly using science and math to make could be described and predicted perfectly with precise neuroscience it wont give you, again like philosophy in the solid world, any actionable information regarding your experience. Meaning for all the ways science and math can dismiss various philosophies and historical frameworks and transcendental soykaf and say like it or not these are the facts, I can just as easily say the same in that its demonstrably (scientifically proven even!) that showing someone a bunch of stats about say death tolls and food insecurity and whatever else in gaza won't actually make them care more and in fact actually causes it to all get pushed to this inactionable unemotional data part of their brain. And science being able to say that and prescribe instead you should show them a story about said data using all of these soft sciences to understand what they care about, what are peoples desires, what are contemporary philosophers noticing about dissemination of information vs action, etc. doesn't really mean science "won out". The action taken was entirely produced and communicated unscientificallt and unmathmatically because everyone intuitively knows what im saying they just in brief moments of retardation believe they have ascended to perfect rationality and hold no space for anything but the facts and then immediately after buy flowers for their lover on the way home because shes pretty and lovely and asked for them and they would take any action she suggests even on a whim and it will be the act they are most proud of all week. You cant escape science and math being the end all be all but you also cant escape the experience of your desires and fears and ups and downs being the end all be all and almost anything produced by the soft sciences speaks to the latter. Data alone, increasingly actually, has no relevant voice. Any time you are implying data says this or that about people to make it actionable in real time you arent practicing science anymore its at best sociology and at worst just a story you created which this is a side thing but its why sometimes "im a rationalist" types have some of the most mentally deficient reactionary prescriptions for the world because they dont understand the science and math is not speaking to them and is not humanist by nature.

philosophy is a field of study that has yet to develop into established science. philosophy deals with the "why" whereas science deals with the "how", philosophy involves logic and reason and speculation whereas science involves experimentation and gathering empirical data. what we call the natural sciences today used to be called natural philosophy, psychology used to be called mental philosophy, etc. basically when we figure out how to start running tests and gathering actual data, it goes from being a philosophy to a science.

>>97603 >i dont actually believe this but I dont have a good argument against it here's one: the idea that mathematical derivations or scientific observations can tell you how the world works is a philosophical claim, and it is ludicrous to expect to be able to prove it either mathematically or empirically. You'd basically be trying to prove "this sentence is true".

>>97639 i dont know if you read rest of post but I sort of come around to this or was being facetious in saying i "have no good arguments against it" (I dont but even modern philosophy has moved on somewhat from debate settling truth) but not in the way you are saying because thats a very ancient argument and i might tango with you on it but if I dont the long and short of it isnt something the science or math puritan accepts for a myriad of very good and bad reasons but the long and short of it is these people don't come from a skeptic world view but even most more modern philosophers don't ascribe to a tradition where saying "observation can tell you how the world works" is even a claim that needs to be made. Not because its obviously inherently true but because nothing changes if it isn't. It's a gotcha statement that in practice is thrown out and some nod and go yes and some dont and then everyone goes back continuing to live in that observational world because its impossible to do otherwise. This is the kind of irrelevance im talking about not an idealogical irrelevance. Its a humanist statement that assumes we start from baseline of needing to prove whats real and to address how you can even know strict rationality science and math truly describe the real. More or less most big thinkers accept that observation probably or may not depict "true reality" or "the nature of things", some would even say a psychotic break is actually the closest you can get to experiencing that. So who cares, if observations can't tell you how the world works they certainly still are evidently better at telling you how our world works because it can tell me and predict how I should grow my food or why its warm today and if its going to be warm tommorow while for every philosophy that poignantly sort of predicts where things are headed there is 100 that do not (and usually even the ones that do miss a lot or need to be stretched). Only some of us need philosophers to live but almost everyone will reach a point where they need products of science to continue living. And sure thats imagining the world works off the desires of humans because assuming "being alive is good" could also be described as a philosophical statement , but its a who cares statement for the same reasons as the one earlier, for all intents and purposes no one lives any other way so this alternative truer reality where these are real questions that need to be answered by a secret third thought that is still observational but less observational than science and math you can not actually take me to, there isnt a reality where the answer to the question "does observation tell you how the world works", something that should be a very fundamental question, actually changes our reality in any big fundamental way. Im almost positive you are gonna have a lot of instant almost guttural recoiling to this because you probably feel these questions and philosophies changed your life and your reality in a big way and if you read the rest of my post thats what im getting at. But if you can swallow it even partially there is people who can make a better case as to why people stopped caring about the question you are asking than me and I promise there is still magic on the other side and it isn't just "everything is data and only what can be proven matters". We are actually living in a time where that is evidently also not the case. I wont prescribe something for you to look up because who knows if you even care or buy whatever im saying, im sure you can come up with arguments against everything I said above but they arent even my arguments and I will say its an argument thats played out forever and it goes in circles and is unresolveable. The only reason many have agreed strawman science math man won against strawman skeptic man is that metaphorically you can imagine skeptic man got poisoned and science man has the antidote in his hand and skeptic man goes heh an antidote how can you even be sure i want to live how can you be sure we dont live forever do you remember a time you didnt exist and then he dies, is recorded as a statistic, and literally nothing about the science mans reality is disproven while the skeptic man is completely erased from reality. What im saying is that in the modern times the science man has a gun and is going to kill himself becausd he works for openai and they just had a briefing about a new contract with the government to "help" those with ai induced psychosis sign up for military service and not the skeptic man but something from the lineage of the skeptic man is tasked with convincing him to take the gun off his head. But in order to be the latter you have to kill the former even if it hurts or gives you an identity crisis where you almost backslide into being evil.

>>97652 sorry this is written so retardedly. Long and short of it is the long and short of it is -_-. im about to have a gun to my head right about now please ignore the wordage if you can find it in your heart

>>97604 funny, most people would argue that the distinction between science and engineering is that science deals with the "why" whereas engineering deals with the "how." science involves a lot of logic and reason and speculation. what distinguishes science from philosophy is an established common set of priors that can be used to fully justify (in principle) other data consistently about aspects of reality in an empirical fashion. philosophy is about establishing the priors themselves from which we can understand aspects of reality. philosophy harms itself when it attempts to be a science. scientism itself causes harm when taken to zealously.

>>97604 Maybe philosophy is the pile of feilds of study which have yet to develop into established sciences, and perhaps some may never do so. But once in a while something breaks off.

It was said in the past that "theology is the queen of the sciences." God reconciles all truth, abstract, practical, and social, because he is the source of all things, the sustainer of all things, and is himself personal from eternity. He is the Principle which grounds all principles and the Truth from which all truth proceeds. Eternally rational, present, and personal.

>>97652 >So who cares, if observations can't tell you how the world works they certainly still are evidently better at telling you how our world works because it can tell me and predict how I should grow my food or why its warm today But you understand that you are making a philosophical argument here, no? The fact that it seems evidently true to you, from the priors that you are setting out, doesn't mean it is an unassailable fact. >there isnt a reality where the answer to the question "does observation tell you how the world works", something that should be a very fundamental question, actually changes our reality in any big fundamental way. Does a thought need to change our reality in any big fundamental way to be worth thinking? Also, deciding what is valuable in life is the core of philosophy and always has been since ancient times. All I really want you to understand is that we are having a philosophical discussion right now, and we're both thinking philosophical thoughts. The only way to escape this is to commit philosophical suicide, or accept slave morality, or whatever you want to call it. Basically stop thinking and accept what we're told.

>>97683 you are literally going in circles as we speak and we will both be if we continue this. You arent really addressing anything I said I laid a case for you why its irrelevant if I used philosophy to come up with why philosophy of the kind your talking about is "dead" to these people you just aren't accepting it because it isnt meeting your philosophical bar but the thing is it doesnt nor will ever have to and thats the point im trying to tell you. We are having a philosophical discussion because I only know you from posts and its the only thing youve shown interest in so im not gonna talk about it in some other terms though many absolutely could and trust me you would find it very frustrating. I also addressed "does a thought need to change our fundamental reality to be worth thinking" if you read the post. philosophy didnt end at hegel please read further if you want more information im not a philosopher nor are these really my arguments and I promise you the level of case you are making for continental philosophy has been thoroughly thoroughly discussed dissected ripped apart. As I said once again in my post in spite of this im not a claimer that philosophy is dead so I have no idea why you need me to agree to anything.