Re: Platonism

From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 12/02/04 

Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:10:42 GMT

On 02 Dec 2004 01:12:42 GMT, tchow@lsa.umich.edu in comp.ai.philosophy
wrote:

>In article <41ae95e8.45508732@netnews.att.net>,
>Lester Zick <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>I don't know that Plato had any beliefs about numbers. And I don't
>>know what platonic beliefs about numbers would be, and I really don't
>>think we should describe beliefs about numbers, axioms, and math as
>>platonic or not. They're just beliefs, attitudes, quidities, or
>>whatever and can be handled or analyzed that way instead of whether
>>they're platonic or not. Otherwise you're arguing the wrong thing. I
>>have lots of very specific arguments regarding the foundations of math
>>but I don't run around trying to argue that they're platonic or not. I
>>try to focus on whether they're correct or not.
>
>Earlier you said:
>
>>it really doesn't matter if you're a platonist. That's what
>>I find so irritating about the subject. It only matters what you can
>>prove of things in relation to one another. The rest is just so much
>>hot air regardless of what one believes.
>
>I took you to mean, "It doesn't really matter if you subscribe to the
>philosophy that is commonly, though maybe not accurately, called
>`platonism.'" I disagree with that. In light of your latest message,
>I see that perhaps what you meant was, "It doesn't matter whether or not
>you call your beliefs `platonist' or whether they agree with Plato's;
>what matters is whether your beliefs stand or fall on their own merits."

The problem is that beliefs as such don't stand or fall on any merits.
That's why they're beliefs to begin with. If you mean pythagoreanism,
at least there is something to discuss. Or if you mean mathematical
idealism, there is something to discuss. But if you say mathematical
platonism it doesn't convey anything that seems open to discussion on
any basis whatsoever that I can see.

>If that's what you meant, then I agree with you. However, I don't think
>that's what people are arguing about. They're arguing about the validity
>of certain beliefs, which they happen to be calling `platonism' for
>convenience. Presumably this should not be so irritating to you, since
>it's a philosophical argument rather than a semantic one.

Philosophical arguments are about as vacuous as any argument can
possibly be. If you want to state a philosophical position, that's one
thing. If you want to disagree with someone else's philosophical
position, that's another. But arguing about it is like arguing virtue
among whores. It just doesn't matter.

The only purpose to philosophical disputation lies in establishing
some kind of direction subject to scientific analysis. If we were to
go with pythagoreanism or mathematical idealism, there is something
subject to elaboration and ultimate resolution in scientific terms. We
can conceivably get to some resolution of mathematical idealism as a
subspecies of idealism in general and ultimately reconcile both with
some kind of realism.

What I object to are mathematicians or other scientists arguing
analogically instead of scientifically because they are almost as bad
at it as professional philosophers. There are certainly urgent
formative issues in mathematics and science generally, but none of
them concern whether pythagoreans or platonists have the right spin
on the origin of numbers. Personally when I'm looking for scientific
insight and inspiration I prefer to contemplate the holy trinity and
the virgin birth. But who cares?

Regards - Lester

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Platonism
    ... >>I don't know that Plato had any beliefs about numbers. ... >philosophy that is commonly, though maybe not accurately, called ... platonism it doesn't convey anything that seems open to discussion on ... What I object to are mathematicians or other scientists arguing ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Platonism
    ... >I don't know that Plato had any beliefs about numbers. ... Otherwise you're arguing the wrong thing. ... philosophy that is commonly, though maybe not accurately, called ... which they happen to be calling `platonism' for ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: Platonism
    ... >I don't know that Plato had any beliefs about numbers. ... Otherwise you're arguing the wrong thing. ... philosophy that is commonly, though maybe not accurately, called ... which they happen to be calling `platonism' for ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Platonism
    ... >>But platonism? ... I maintain that platonistic beliefs about the set of all integers ... Nelson illustrates what happens if you remove ... have lots of very specific arguments regarding the foundations of math ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: Platonism
    ... >>But platonism? ... I maintain that platonistic beliefs about the set of all integers ... Nelson illustrates what happens if you remove ... have lots of very specific arguments regarding the foundations of math ...
    (sci.math)