Mathematical and philosophical analyses

Philosophy of Science 31 (3):255-264 (1964)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this paper I shall argue that to a very significant extent mathematics is concept analysis, and that though the analysis of mathematical concepts is in a number of ways different from the analysis of philosophic concepts, the similarities between these two types of concept analyses are as important and far reaching as the differences. I shall argue that because mathematics and philosophy are each concerned with the analysis of concepts, they are much more like one another epistemologically than is often recognized. In insisting upon fundamental similarities between mathematics and philosophy, I shall be agreeing with the classical rationalists, but on a very different conception of both philosophy and mathematics from that held by the rationalists. The rationalists wished to assimilate philosophy to mathematics as understood in their time; viz. as a body of necessary propositions, which followed from self-evident axioms and postulates, revealed to the natural light of reason. As against this rationalistic position, I wish to make a comparison in the reverse direction, in which I shall presuppose a certain conception of philosophy as something given, and then insist that mathematics is in many important respects similar to philosophy as so understood. In particular, I wish to insist that there is a significant comparison between mathematics on the one hand, and philosophy as understood by probably a majority of philosophers today on the other--viz., philosophy understood as concept analysis--, where it is conceded that the analysis of philosophic concepts is inherently a tentative matter, wherein it is impossible--at least in the usual case--to offer any one analysis of a given philosophic concept as absolutely certain and beyond all revision. I shall argue that by virtue of the fact that mathematics, like philosophy, is concerned with the analysis of concepts, many at least of the propositions advanced within it are inherently revisable, and do not possess the kind of certainty the rationalists ascribed to them

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,809

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Wittgenstein on the Philosophy of Mathematics.Raymond Haig Melkom - 1982 - Dissertation, The University of Western Ontario (Canada)
Mathematical Knowledge and Pattern Cognition.Michael D. Resnik - 1975 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 5 (1):25 - 39.
Mathematical Intuition: Phenomenology and Mathematical Knowledge.Richard Tieszen - 1989 - Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Are There Mathematical Hinges?Annalisa Coliva - 2020 - International Journal for the Study of Skepticism 10 (3-4):346-366.
Reverse mathematics: proofs from the inside out.John Stillwell - 2018 - Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Multiversism and Concepts of Set: How much Relativism is acceptable?Neil Barton - 2016 - In Francesca Boccuni & Andrea Sereni (eds.), Objectivity, Realism, and Proof. FilMat Studies in the Philosophy of Mathematics. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. pp. 189-209.
Multiversism and Concepts of Set: How Much Relativism Is Acceptable?Neil Barton - 2016 - In Francesca Boccuni & Andrea Sereni (eds.), Objectivity, Realism, and Proof. FilMat Studies in the Philosophy of Mathematics. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. pp. 189-209.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
53 (#407,997)

6 months
14 (#225,286)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references