[TheOtherHobbes]

Yes, mathematics has ethics - in the sense that as soon as you start talking about something being "right", while other understandings are "wrong" you're making an ethical choice. That doesn't just imply right/wrong in a logical sense. It also implies that you may be choosing use an analogous process - possibly automated - to find right/wrong values in decisions of all kinds.

Philosophy is about understanding patterns, habits, and traditions of thought. You can look at the patterns from different angles, one of which is ethical.

If you don't think at this level, math just "seems right because it is" - obviously and self-evidently.

But that's exactly why you need philosophy - to understand why that's a superficial misunderstanding of how math works, how the foundations of math aren't as stable as they seem to be (see also Hilbert's Project), why empiricism cannot possibly be genuinely objective and only works up to a certain point, and why even something "obvious" like the concept of True/False is contingent and questionable.

Philosophically, any sentence that starts with "Obviously..." or "It's completely clear that..." turns out to be the product of a cultural habit of thought, not the absolute and immutable objective truth that it pretends to be.

If you have no experience of this you're going to find this hard to understand, and you may even deny it outright.

But that may be taken to suggest that you haven't learned to think outside the usual socially-defined norms, and therefore can't imagine anything outside of them - which is not in any way the same as having infallible knowledge that there is nothing outside of them.

[crimsonalucard]

I get it. Your saying philosophy is foundational. A framework that’s even lower level then logic. My argument is that at this low level, why is philosophy talking about high level stuff like religion and ethics?

My guess is historical reasons. People in the past could not delineate the dichotomy between the human experience and hard logic, but they saw a deeper meaning in many topics. Hence philosophy is a basically a relic from the past.

[dogcomplex]

Yes, philosophers argue "hard logic" is a subset of philosophy and the human experience, and its claim to truth is as unstable and fuzzy as the rest of said human experience - to the extent it can be applied to the real world at all. Moreover, the use of "hard logic" brings its own relative cultural perspective that steamrolls others without foundational claim to truth. Appealing to "hard logic" without awareness and acknowledgement of other arguments for claims to truth is thus seen as naive or arguably unethical, especially when imposed into systems that limit other discussions of truth.

That said, there are logical positivist philosophers that believe reality is consistent with a hard logic view of the world, and thus it is foundational. They are a minority these days as far as I know - falling out of favor since... Kant? (I forget my history).

But no, philosophy is not a relic of the past in the sense that it has been surpassed by logic/science/etc - not til those can lay claim to truth better than a bunch of old Athenians. Jury's still out.