glass house philosopher / notebook 1
Tuesday, 1st May 2001
May Day. I took a day away from my desk and walked to the City centre, wearing my red sweater in honour of the occasion. In London, with scores of anti-capitalist demonstrations planned, Tony Blair put an extra 5000 Police on the streets with orders to break the heads of any marchers who raised their voices above the level of polite conversation.
In Sheffield, it was just another shopping day. In the Peace Gardens by the town hall, office workers basked in the sunlight and munched their salad sandwiches. There were no banners or waving placards. The loudest cry of protest came from babies in prams left to stare at the sky and the fountains while their unemployed dads puffed a quick cigarette.
Then home to find I'd had a Pathways enrolment, from a computer consultant in South Africa. "I am looking forward to a lot of intellectual stimulation aside from the daily activities of running a business...". Great to have you aboard, Thomas. I hope you won't be disappointed!
o O o
Now for today's business. I received a curious inquiry a couple of weeks ago:
In an attempt to filter text to ensure that any text my children study has the highest probability of excellence, I have suggested to them that any modern philosophical text they read should be written by a philosopher who has demonstrated ability in pure mathematics to the level of at least a first in Part 1 of the Cambridge tripos in Pure Math, or to any similar standard. Philosophers who do not meet that standard are not necessarily poor philosophers; however I consider that they have a significantly lower probability of being good ones, and are arguably not worth the investment of one's time to interact with them. I am introducing my two children (12 and 13) to philosophy, initially ethical, while developing their skills in math, logic and probability. I am interested in the possibility of their taking a pathways or diploma program. However in view of my filter, I would want them to be tutored only by a philosopher with the appropriate level of math I suggest above. I'd be very grateful were you to advise if it would be worth their while to apply for admission to the Pathways program.
Every kind wish
I wrote back:
Dear James Howe,
I wish you luck in your endeavour. Unfortunately, I would consider 12 or 13 a little too young to undertake a Pathways program. Wait until your children are 15 and 16 before submitting their applications.
Plato famously had inscribed above the gates of the Academy, 'Let no-one who has not studied mathematics enter here.' Philosophy students will readily recognize the importance of the issue you have raised, and for that reason I would like to ask for your permission to post your letter on the Ask a Philosopher Questions page.
Mr Howe replied promptly:
Thank you very much for your reply: I've pencilled in an application for my children in 2003/04.
I'd be very interested in views on the issue, and would be happy that my letter be posted on the "Ask a philosopher" page.
Lest my letter did not suggest it, may I say I'm impressed and encouraged by your enterprise.
Occasionally, when I receive a question which I think will be of particular interest to academic philosophers, I send the question to the professional philosophy e-mail lists PHILOSOP and PHILOS-L. Usually I get two or three answers. I decided to try my luck with Mr Howe's question, under the heading, How much maths does a philosopher need?
I knew that the question was provocative. I hadn't bargained on opening up a hornet's nest.
I did think of editing the replies. One or two are rather bad mannered. But there was also a fair amount of support for Mr Howe's view. So in the end I decided that it was only fair if all the responses to Mr Howe were posted here. The postings are in chronological order.
I shall reserve my comments.
I would say it depends on what sort of philosophy one is interested in. For example, someone who wants to do philosophy of science, especially of the physical sciences, ought to look for tutors who know a lot of mathematics. For biological sciences, it depends on the branch of biology to some extent. For social sciences, a tutor ought to know something about statistics, which is a different matter than knowing about so-called "pure" mathematics.
If one is interested in ethics or aesthetics or philosophy of language, or philosophy of mind, it no doubt would be advantageous to have a tutor who knows some mathematics, but I wouldn't think it was necessary, or even necessarily the best thing. One can be biased by knowing _too much_ mathematics, or at least by trying to carry mathematical modes of thought into some philosophical domains.
Professor Emeritus Mathematics & Computer Science, one-time Senior Lecturer in Mathematics, and History and Philosophy of Science (New Zealand)
I'm afraid I agree with him, in substance if not in detail. I started doing philosophy as an undergraduate, but it rapidly became clear to me that if I wanted to make any progress with the problems I found interesting I would have to learn some logic a lot in fact, and I then did a Ph.D. in maths not easy if you haven't done any u/g maths. I think it's logic one needs rather than maths, actually. Max Cresswell, whom I used to see a lot of when he was my HOD at Vic, used to say that you don't have to do a lot of logic to be good at philosophy, but you have to feel the attraction of it.
Perhaps the grand and omnipotent intelligence that is James Howe has also put a filter on his children on material written by philosophers who criticise unfounded elitism. A philosophers mathematical ability, on the overall scheme of things I would say is neither here nor there; it is quite possible to write a profound aphorism without knowledge of long division. Rather than putting his children on an applied Pathways program, why doesn't Mr. Howe give them each a chocolate bar and a comic book? Such 'Uber-Education' is the last aid to upkeeping the delusion some parents have that there children are special.
University of Reading
Well, you know, Husserl started as a mathematician... and he's not thought of too well these days, except in "postmodernist" and phenomenological circles... not, I would imagine, by the analytics.
There's an interesting issue here. I would tend to agree with your post, except that I have seen many many people in computer science and math who I would deem entirely unsuitable, because of a kind of intellectual rigidity and arrogance, to be tutors. On the other hand, there are many more who, not having the precision and clarity which math does foster, are also unsuitable. A difficult choice.
My recommendation, for what it's worth, would be that if you find someone who has changed either from or to mathematics (or something similar, i.e., physics or computer science) to or from something else (a la Husserl), that you look for a person now a mathematician who started as a poet (or something similar), or vice versa. It would be most interesting, I would think (and also most rare) to find someone who has gone from literature or poetry to math, than the other way around. But if you want a philosopher, then I'd recommend someone *not* an analytic philosopher who started in math.
Also, find someone to teach your children the game Go, if they like that kind of thing; it's much better than chess for developing thinking skills.
Steven Ravett Brown
What is this alleged probability based on? Is there even a high correlation between ability in pure mathematics and verbal reasoning/argumentation skills? Is there not frequently a disjunction, in fact? Particularly for ethics, the relevance of ability in pure mathematics seems elusive.
Perhaps one could insist that one would only favour philosophers whose Greek was up to standard for coping with Plato in the original, or whose German was satisfactory for handling Kant, or whose French could interpret Sartre.....
All these requirements for one poor child. I am reminded how Mill's father made a strict developmental education rota for him commencing at a very early age and how Mill appears to feel his later breakdown was as a result.
What is needed is a broad and open mind and a sprinkling of such tools and talent that will enable one to decipher the works and ways of man. What does one do if the poor child has an innate inability with mathematics, decide they are not fit to philosophize? Not in my book, anyway.
As a philosopher I am not interested in any "probability" of excellence but instead in certainty. Therefore I filter everything that my children are exposed to and especially take care to assure that they are exposed to no mathematician who not shown ability in pure philosophy of at least the level of an American majoring student in the Third Year. Mathematicians without training in philosophy are not any less qualified as mathematicians, but it is certain that they will no doubt deal with irrational and unethical numbers, presumptively assume the reality of quanta, and show a bent toward accountancy. Thank goodness my children will not be exposed to any such deleterious influences!
James (Andy) Stroble
The fallacies are so glaring that I would advise Mr. Howe to allow someone else to teach his children probability. They are too young for philosophy, but they are old enough to choose their own books. He should let them.
In 1960 I graduated from an average public school, with no math beyond the required two years of algebra, some plane & solid geometry, and a sprinkling of analytic geometry and calculus. I never added to this in college, where I majored in French; or in graduate school, where I obtained a Ph.D. in Linguistics. Having become interested in semantics and philosophy of language during the course of my PhD., upon the advice of Donald Kalish (who taught an introduction to set theory that I wished to audit) I learned logic from the Kalish & Montague text. Since then, apart from a course in metalogic from Alonzo Church (which I didn't understand), I have not studied any mathematics. My consequent lack of "mathematical sophistication" has kept me from accomplishing professionally as much as I would have liked. In another respect, however, this lack of mathematical sophistication has perhaps done more good than harm. For it has allowed me to approach familiar philosophical problems--including 'Frege's problem', which you take up on your WebSite--from standpoints that would never have occurred to anyone who was not self-taught. The downside to this: as the letter from Howe suggests, no "expert" is likely to want to entertain such work. Having said this, may I invite you to point your browser at http://structuredindividuals.com/complexes/dev.html and then at http://structuredindividuals.com/paradox/toc.html.
William J. Greenberg
While I agree with the main thrust of Prof. Fisher's remarks, I would like to point out that any philosopher worthy of this name should be trained in, knowledgeable about and familiar with logic or better yet, with a number of logical systems...If Russell and Whitehead 's point has some merit: logic is what makes mathematics possible...
Although both logic and math can be very useful to a philosopher, they can also be 'obstacles' or 'handicaps'. While acknowledging the merits and benefits of rigorous (logical, rational, or mathematical) thinking and reasoning, philosophers should also be aware of the limits and limitations of such...particularly when it comes of issues of embodied living and emotional existence...etc...
Nader N. Chokr, Ph.D
If this is the sort of conclusions which studying math and probability leads a person to then I would suggest Mr. Howe keep his children away from studying math and probability. But he probably wouldn't want to hear this argument from me anyway because I don't think I can meet the criterion he has set for philosophers who are worth interacting with.
Peter B. Raabe
Ph.D. in Philosophical Counselling
This strange view is absurd. Someone requested a view. I hardly know where to begin. But how about this: if you start with preconceptions like this you're more than likely to turn into a bad philosopher or no philosopher at all. The point about philosophy is range and depth, and being able to distinguish rubbish from good stuff, not cutting things down in an act of pre-emptive intellectual narrowing just in case one is corrupted by any bad stuff. I pity his children. Philosophy is not about being 'clever' or 'smart'. Although being 'clever' or 'smart' can result in the simulacrum of a good philosopher. Nor on the other hand is philosophy about pretentious gobbledegook devoid of rational discrimination. Anyone who has taught anyone with any nous knows all this.
Maybe he was joking.
When I was 14 I read Karl Popper, THE OPEN SOCIETY AND ITS ENEMIES, A. J. Ayer, LANGUAGE, TRUTH AND LOGIC and Colin Wilson THE OUTSIDER. Try throwing that at the children and see what they make of it.
Dr John Shand
The Open University
Oh, horse feathers! I have just spent a great deal of effort on a list devoted to the sf writer Philip K. Dick, on the question of philosophers and mathematics. Extended philosophical wrangling is far from unusual on "PKD" (nor is it on other sf lists of the better sort, i.e., to do with writers having an interest in philosophical questions). What got things started was the way in which consciousness is treated in certain stories by, inter alia, Dick and the Australian writer Greg Egan -- from Cartesian substance to computational state.
Well, the joint was jumpin', as the old rock and roll songs used to put it, when a side issue arose. One contributor, an Italian teacher and impressive Dick scholar, started to revile English-language philosophy in this century, precisely because of what he took to be a gross overemphasis on mathematics (or formal logic), suggesting this created an undesirable aura of exclusivity. This he contrasted with the continental approach, far more discursive, more closely allied to literature and the humanities.
I was (am) prepared to concede the obvious merits of certain of the names he cited. The appearance of Walter Benjamin's ARCADES PROJECT, for instance, was the publishing event of last year, and no wonder. But the importance of mathematics, if not formal logic, to philosophy depends on a raft of considerations. That it is a vice to which English or American philosophy is especially prone is simply absurd.
But that it has become some sort of aberration is strongly suggested by the initial message. One hardly expects someone keen on the philosophy of mathematics to be less than adept. But for the rest?"
For a start, there is a difference been arithmetic and mathematics, arithmetic is a cultural artifact, whereas mathematics is universal, a good example for this, is the lack of zero in Roman numerals. I sometimes think that if the ancient Greek had had the zero, they might have come up with a lot more science. By this, I mean if the same kind of question was asked in the time of the ancient Greeks, and if the answer was yes, the ancient Greek equivalent of a first in Part 1 of the Cambridge tripos in Pure Math must be achieved, before that philosopher is worthy of study, then it probably explains why the ancient Greeks never achieved, what the renaissance achieved via Fibbonachi.
It used to be believed in arithmetic, that the bit to the right of the of the decimal point did not matter and up until, ten, twenty years ago, you probably could have achieved a first in Part 1 of the Cambridge tripos in Pure Math, believing that the bit to the right of the decimal point, only matters to a certain number of places, (understandable when you suffer with writers cramp!)
To drive the point home, we teach our children to think in tens, when nature counts in twos, fours, eighties, sixteens, etc, etc.
Maybe we should teach our children hexadecimal.
This requirement strikes me as strangely stringent. I'm sure that Aristotle, for example, could not have met it, although Descartes and Leibniz would have met it effortlessly. (Descartes might, I grant, have had difficulty with any problems in calculus.)
In light of this, James would find that one of the greatest--if not the greatest--of western moral philosophers would be unsuited to teach his children moral philosophy, or even discuss it with them, while two other philosophers, not particularly noted for their ability to deal with moral issues would at least be in line for the job.
Of course, demonstrated ability in 'pure mathematics' is surely put forward as a necessary, and not a sufficient condition for employment in this case; yet if one thinks of those who have--how shall I put it?--demonstrated ability as moral philosophers, Kant would surely be near the head of the list, and Kant's notions of mathematics were notoriously strange (as Frege points out in Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik). Mill's utilitarian views have certainly influenced legislation, and versions of Utilitarianism are by no means dead as systems of morality; yet Mill believed, oddly, that '7 + 5 = 12,' e.g., was an empirical generalization, and indeed that the definition of a number (e.g. 3) states an empirical fact, or 'a physical fact,' so that Frege was able to joke 'What a pity Mill did not also illustrate the physical facts underlying the numbers 0 and 1!' [The Foundations of Arithmetic, §7] Frege himself, to whom the world of logic and mathematics owes an enormous debt, was an anti-semite. Russell, while a brilliant mathematician, was cavalier to the point of dishonesty in his personal life and I can hardly think of a worse person to instruct the young in any fine-grained ethical matters. (Russell was quite good on larger issues, such as opposition to World War I, and to nuclear weaponry; but it isn't clear quite how his mathematical acumen is at all related to the views he took.)
I would give a great deal to inhabit a possible world in which I could discuss moral philosophy with David Hume; yet Hume, unable to get outside his empiricist conception of the world, thought that Euclidean geometry suffered because the lines we can actually construct are never quite true.
I think that perhaps James believes that there is some demonstrable positive correlation between aptitude in pure math and human goodness. This is a delusion. Kurt Gödel, in the belief that someone was trying to poison him, refused to eat and starved to death.
We have a project to teach children (7-15) math, logic, critical and creative thinking, decision making, etc. by means of a direct interaction with color-musical cognitive images of mathematical abstractions. It is not "filtered texts" of mathematical philosophers, it is a new technology to awake a deep inner kid's interest to math, logic, thinking, etc., and as a result to philosophy of cognition. The main aim of the project is "education via (real) discoveries" in classical math and classical logic.
Aesthetic possibilities of the approach are presented in:
Alexander A.Zenkin, Anton A.Zenkin, Presentation "The Unity of the Left-Hemispheric, Rational, Abstract Thinking and the Right-Hemispheric, Intuitive, Visual One. Intellectual Aesthetics of Mathematicial Abstractions". 5th International Congress & Exhibition of the International Society for the Interdisciplinary Study of Symmetry. Sydney, 8-14 July, 2001. Intersections of Art and Science. http://www.isis-s.unsw.edu.au/interact/gallery/image_files/zenkin/a_zenkin.html
New logical possibilities of the approach are presented in:
A.A.Zenkin, Super-Induction Method: Logical Acupuncture of Mathematical Infinity. Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy, in Boston, Massachusetts, 1998. Section "Logic and Philosophy of Logic". The Paideia Project On-Line. WEB-Site address: http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Logi/LogiZenk.htm">
Unique creative possibilities of THE BOTH-HEMISPHERICAL MAN-COMPUTER CCG-SYSTEM "PYTHAGORAS" are presented in the first section "I. COGNITIVE COMPUTER GRAPHICS (CCG).VIRTUAL REALITY WORLD OF THE NATURAL NUMBERS" at http://www.com2com.ru/alexzen/
All that is not a traditional philosophy of mathematics, but it is a modern multi-media pathway from real mathematical CCG-discoveries to a scientific creativity and then to philosophy of the world cognition.
As regards the "ethical philosophy" education, I think that one of the effective pathways to the true ethics is the cognition of a true nature of Infinity: before the Infinity face ("the starry sky above a head") we begin to hear a voice of the moral law in our soul according to I.Kant. We teach Kids to cognize a visual aesthetics of (mathematical) Infinity.
We are open for contacts as to the project.
Prof. Alexander A. Zenkin
Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Leading Research Scientist of the Computing Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Member of the AI-Association and the Philosophical Society of the Russia, Full-Member of the International Federation of Artists and of the Creative Union of the Russia Artists
My only suggestion to Mr. Howe would be that he avoid Plato at all costs. His grasp of mathematics as evinced in the Socratic dialogues is very vague. It seems, therefore, that the better education in philosophy would be one which omitted the study of this particular philosopher.
The study of philosophy is the study of philosophy's own history. This necessarily includes studying bad philosophy (and philosophers who are bad at maths), whatever that might be. One cannot exclude people from it on the basis of their ability in mathematics or any area. It seems to me that the privileging of maths as a criterion of philosophical merit has been criticized already. But what strikes me as odd is the idea that we should only ever study what is generally agreed to be right. Maybe this works for some subjects (punctuation springs to mind), and the study of maths can be separated from the history of this study. It absolutely does not work for philosophy.
I'd be interested in the evidential basis for the opinion that:
"Philosophers who do not meet that standard [demonstrated ability in pure mathematics to the level of at least a first in Part 1 of the Cambridge tripos in Pure Math, or .. any similar standard]... have a significantly lower probability of being good ones, and are arguably not worth the investment of one's time to interact with them."
Perhaps Mr Howe got the crazy idea that mathematical reasoning is important to good philosophy from considering the backgrounds of Frege, Russell, Whitehead, Wittgenstein, Quine....
I'm a little alarmed by the turn this mathematics-in-philosophy thread is taking. The prevailing view seems to be one that invites the parody "If one doesn't need to be able to count to do philosophy, perhaps one doesn't need to be able to read either. Perhaps one doesn't even need a waste-paperbasket!" Philosophy is an activity, and one needs certain skills for it. No doubt one can debate what those skills are, and perhaps one should. Does one need a lot of maths? That was the conclusion I came to when I was an undergraduate doing philosophy. It seemed to me that if I wanted to understand the reductionist claims then being circulated in philosophy of mind (this is the 1960's) then I had better learn some logic. Is this a controversial conclusion?
What worries me is that there seems to be abroad the view that one can do philosophy in vacuo, that for example one can do philosophy of mathematics without knowing any mathematics, of philosophy of history without having studied any history, or philosophy of biology without knowing any biology, and so on. I thought that post-Gellner we had put that sort of silliness behind us.
A "tough" year working on a classical language, such as Latin, using say by Wheelock's latin grammar is ideal, I think.
Unfortunately, such specialization of formal training can be carried to excess. I believe for example that excessive attention to proof theory and model theory has confined certain philosophers to a narrower perspective than is desirable, prohibiting them from fully appreciating, for example, some of the important issues in philosophy of science. For the nonmathematically inclined, I would suggest classical languages; for the average person I would suggest one semester of calculus and one rigorous class in set theory as minimally sufficient to ensure versatility and analytical acumen.
Again, what is important here is the ability to analyze an argument. To do this requires being able to take a sentence apart; classical languages need to be reconsidered as a valuable means towards this most desired end. Expectations must not be held over a young person's head; he (or she) must be allowed to seek that level of mathematical sophistication suitable to his interests. The most we can hope for is to instill a "can do" spirit and insist that a serious effort be made where the means are at our disposal and sympathetically hope for the best.
In an attempt to filter text to ensure that any text my children study has the highest probability of excellence, I have suggested to them that any philosophical text they read should be written by a philosopher who has refused to follow the path of the "career academic". That rules out Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Habermas, Foucault and Derrida right away -- and rules in Descartes, Spinoza, Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Mill, Wittgenstein, and many others.
Philosophers who do not meet that standard are not necessarily poor philosophers; however I consider that they have a significantly lower probability of making original contributions to human thought, of thinking independently, or of writing clearly. They are likely to judge their own progress in terms of how successfully their efforts meet with the approval of their professional seniors, and their achievements are likely to be confined to the sort recognized by figures of academic authority.
Philosophy is best conducted with a healthy disrespect for authority, rather than an unhealthy awe of it. Anyone who has demonstrated ability in pure mathematics to the level of at least a first in Part 1 of the Cambridge tripos in Pure Math, or to any similar standard, is very likely to be a snivelling creep who doesn't have the wherewithal to plough his own furrow in any discipline.
Send me an Email
Ask a Philosopher!