> Every area of human cognition is affected by philosophy. Mathematics certainly merits its own philosophic treatment.
This is the problem I have with philosophy. It's a huge category error. It's too broad. Why is there a philosophy of math and then a philosophy of ethics or art?
Art and ethics are clearly human experiences and really arbitrary things that are made up by people. A bug or a bird or a hyper intelligent space alien won't be familiar with these concepts because they are, in general, unique to humans.
Math on the other hand has the clear distinction of being more universal. The underpinnings of math and logic end up being hierarchically above religion and ethics because you can describe the entire universe using the principles of logic.
You have an atom, then from the rules of what describes an atom, you can build a neuron, then from the neuron the human brain, then from the human brain, religion and ethics. But the problem is philosophy places these things side by side as if they're in the same category. The emotions evoked by Monet's paintings have no place next to say a paper on quantum physics.
I feel philosophy just encompasses any topic we can talk "deeply" about. Because literally anything that can be analyzed with great depth is a philosophy... philosophy ends up basically becoming the study of anything on the face of the earth... which is a pointless category.
When you say "merits" philosophical treatment. It basically means merits deep thought and analysis. Why package it up as if it's actually a field with known technical methods of analysis instead of what's actually going on that is random deep musings with no quantitative rigor.
None of the conversations you mention can happen outside the context of an epistemological framework, yet epistemology is far from a settled field. Thus conversations in the aforementioned areas are often reduced to debates on the merits of the respective epistemological premises of different positions.
Epistemology is just another category error in a category error. What is the study of knowledge? It's the study of everything on the face of the earth, just like philosophy.
This is the problem I have with philosophy. It's a huge category error. It's too broad. Why is there a philosophy of math and then a philosophy of ethics or art?
Art and ethics are clearly human experiences and really arbitrary things that are made up by people. A bug or a bird or a hyper intelligent space alien won't be familiar with these concepts because they are, in general, unique to humans.
Math on the other hand has the clear distinction of being more universal. The underpinnings of math and logic end up being hierarchically above religion and ethics because you can describe the entire universe using the principles of logic.
You have an atom, then from the rules of what describes an atom, you can build a neuron, then from the neuron the human brain, then from the human brain, religion and ethics. But the problem is philosophy places these things side by side as if they're in the same category. The emotions evoked by Monet's paintings have no place next to say a paper on quantum physics.
I feel philosophy just encompasses any topic we can talk "deeply" about. Because literally anything that can be analyzed with great depth is a philosophy... philosophy ends up basically becoming the study of anything on the face of the earth... which is a pointless category.
When you say "merits" philosophical treatment. It basically means merits deep thought and analysis. Why package it up as if it's actually a field with known technical methods of analysis instead of what's actually going on that is random deep musings with no quantitative rigor.