FOM: Feferman wet blanket for f.o.m.?
wtait at ix.netcom.com
Tue Mar 17 12:42:12 EST 1998
Robert Tragesser (17/3) wrote, while protesting the label wet blanket for
>(Where one does
>not take the "philosophy of mathematics" to be
>that in-bred academic discipline, but "philosophy" in
>Plato's sense, as a thinking about mathematics that
>aims to make us wiser about and at mathematics -- that
>aims to make mathematicians fully GOOD mathematicians. --
Robert, I protest this view of Plato, who `would have' seen the question
of the existence of large cardinals and CH as the leading problems in
fom, i.e. for the dialectician. In his discussion of mathematics
(properly, exact science) e.g. in the _Phaedo_ (the `second best method')
and in the Divided Line simile in the _republic_ (noesis), he was arguing
precisely for foundations in the sense of *finding the first principles
for these sciences*. There is enough contemporary literature contributing
to the idea of Plato as, to be sure a genious, but one whose ideas are
either totally obscure (which, forgive me, I think the ones you are
attributing to him are) or are such that one would have to be thick as a
log to pretend to understand, much less believe.
No need to slander one while defending another.
More information about the FOM