> From there, logic optimistically assumes a 'flawed' ontology. Logic doesn't assume any ontology. You're free to treat it as a purely formal string-manipulati

> From there, logic optimistically assumes a 'flawed' ontology. Logic doesn't assume any ontology. You're free to treat it as a purely formal string-manipulation game if you really want to. Approaching math or physics as if it were part of the humanities - close readings of primary sources, "genealogical" work, literary exegesis - is worse than useless. If you can't do math, you don't understand it. And if you don't understand math, productive engagement with the philosophy of mathematics is impossible.