3 ms·

Is there a formal language in philosophy? So that one can define the input formulas (axioms) and with some kind of "philosophy math" calculate things like "what

by viach 7y ago

Is there a formal language in philosophy? So that one can define the input formulas (axioms) and with some kind of "philosophy math" calculate things like "what is the meaning of life and everything" and "what is consciousness"? Otherwise for me it all looks like words juggling continuing for many centuries. They really should implement a programming language for philosophy and outsource the hard parts to Ukraine.

dmreedy 7y ago
There is indeed. It's called Formal Logic, and the broad class of philosophers who have attempted that program you describe are usually referred to as "Analytic Philosophers". They haven't made a ton of progress (I mean that as a statement of fact, not disrespect), and tend to tackle much more primitive, foundational problems than what the Continental philosophers like to deal in ("what is the meaning of everything" and all that). Turns out it's a pretty hard problem to even pin down exactly what a word means, or what a name is, much less what the meaning of everything is. The trick is, those questions are the axioms. And so the act of asserting them is a philosophical act in and of themselves. The rest is just moving stones around.
- viach 7y ago
  Thanks for clarifying things to me, I didn't even know the "Analytic Philosophers" term exists. > They haven't made a ton of progress But they progress is what should be provable and repeatable, like the real science requires? So probably, this kind of progress is the only real one in the field?
  - dmreedy 7y ago
    Absolutely, but that's not the interesting part. The problem boils down to the fact that any kind of formal proof system is only "truth-preserving machinery"; that is, you can't get out something "truer" than what you put in. It doesn't introduce new truths into the world, it just permutes existing ones so that different facets of them are clear. But when you're trying ask big questions about the nature of truth itself, a proof doesn't get you very far! You're trying to get at the thing that has to be assumed as a prior or axiom in order for the proof machinery to do what it does. Given our current understanding of the universe, a proof in any formal system can never tell you "why" the thing that it proved was true. Just how it got there.

by viach 7y ago

dmreedy 7y ago

There is indeed. It's called Formal Logic, and the broad class of philosophers who have attempted that program you describe are usually referred to as "Analytic Philosophers". They haven't made a ton of progress (I mean that as a statement of fact, not disrespect), and tend to tackle much more primitive, foundational problems than what the Continental philosophers like to deal in ("what is the meaning of everything" and all that). Turns out it's a pretty hard problem to even pin down exactly what a word means, or what a name is, much less what the meaning of everything is. The trick is, those questions are the axioms. And so the act of asserting them is a philosophical act in and of themselves. The rest is just moving stones around.

viach 7y ago
Thanks for clarifying things to me, I didn't even know the "Analytic Philosophers" term exists. > They haven't made a ton of progress But they progress is what should be provable and repeatable, like the real science requires? So probably, this kind of progress is the only real one in the field?
- dmreedy 7y ago
  Absolutely, but that's not the interesting part. The problem boils down to the fact that any kind of formal proof system is only "truth-preserving machinery"; that is, you can't get out something "truer" than what you put in. It doesn't introduce new truths into the world, it just permutes existing ones so that different facets of them are clear. But when you're trying ask big questions about the nature of truth itself, a proof doesn't get you very far! You're trying to get at the thing that has to be assumed as a prior or axiom in order for the proof machinery to do what it does. Given our current understanding of the universe, a proof in any formal system can never tell you "why" the thing that it proved was true. Just how it got there.