As the OP, I'd like to remind ourselves that the original question was:
Why is it that philosophy does not build on prior work
in the same way mathematics does?
Our wanderings are important, but can we also attempt to answer The
Question?
Please note I did not say:
- Mathematics is superior to Philosophy.
- Language is bad, symbolics is good.
I think I have the answer, but I'd like yours as well.
-- Owen
On Jul 9, 2009, at 8:17 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:
Nick, Glen, Russ, Eric, and many of us who have participated in the
recent spate of philosophical conversations .. I'd like to ask a
question:
Why is it that philosophy does not build on prior work
in the same way mathematics does?
In trying to answer this, I looked briefly into the philosopher
recommended by Timothy Gowers in his VSI to Mathematics. In Gowers'
wrestling with the abstract (or possibly purely pragmatic) approach
to mathematics, he was profoundly affected by Wittgenstein. I'm
enjoying the VSI to Wittgenstein, and am impressed by his analytic
approach.
Frank, in the past, has mentioned that modern philosophy might be
becoming more formal, turning to a more mathematical approach
(apparently flourishing at CMU). Some call it Analytic Philosophy,
which includes Wittgenstein.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy
So the question to the philosophic amongst us: what is the answer to
the above question? Is there a way in which philosophy can build on
past work in the same way mathematics does? Is there an epsilon/
delta breakthrough just waiting to happen in that domain? Will
there be a "Modern Algebra" unification within philosophy, finding
the common ground amongst widely different concepts like symmetry
groups, fields, rings, Hilbert spaces and the like?
-- Owen
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
