http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Analytic-philosophy-Wikipedia-the-free-encyclopedia-tp3235494p3280229.html
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" <
[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009
6:20 PM
To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
<
[hidden email]>
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
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College