[neonological]

>What I've found, from famous books by famous philosophers all the way to pop philosophy books to vague philosophical discussions... is some of the muddiest and most convoluted self-indulgent thinking i've ever seen.

I find philosophy to be highly irrational. It studies topics that are uniquely different yet it categorizes these topics as the same thing.

Aesthetics aka beauty is a philosophy, and so is logic. How do these things exist on the same level? Aesthetics is a human attribute and a human opinion and made up concept, logic is an observable phenomenon fundamental to the universe.

The infinite regressions are also pointless paths to explore. By induction we know it's infinite already so why continue to explore?

[BlueTemplar]

> How do these things exist on the same level?

Through Mathematics ?

[neonological]

Mathematics makes beauty and logic equivalent fields of study that belong in the same category? How?

[BlueTemplar]

Geometry plays an important role in aesthetics (symmetry for instance). (Also math in music.)

[neonological]

That's applied math though. It is categorically on another level in the hierarchy.

Why would one specific application of math, the application of math in beauty be placed by philosophy on the same level as logic fundamentally. Math is derived from logic after all. Why isn't philosophy placing the study of the application of math to origami in the same category? Why does beauty arbitrarily take precedence over origami?

[BlueTemplar]

Not historically. Also remember that Pythagoricians were a mystic cult.

[neonological]

That's just a further reason why it makes no sense. The categorization is developed as mysticism.