I think it is attractive to build on prior work in mathematics, because it is
implicitly trusted as solid and well-constructed all the way to the
foundations. The existing mathematical edifice is *true* in all senses of the
word. From a Platonist perspective it is not even a matter of building as much
as uncovering additional parts of a glorious, existing construction. Even
acknowledging foundational issues, those parts of the subject that have direct
application, works remarkably well.
Significant philosophical contributions, on the other hand, often tend to be
significant precisely because they show where prior work is inadequate, weak,
wrong, i.e. not fit to be built on. Lack of rigour means you can never really
trust the other guy's foundations and lack of direct application means you
can't test them either, so best to dig your own.
Regards,
Rikus
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Owen Densmore" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:20 PM
To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Analytic philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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============================================================
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
