|
|
|
|
|
|
by diversionfactor
1136 days ago
|
|
|
‘Socrates: There is nothing which for my part I like better, Cephalus, than conversing with aged men; for I regard them as travellers who have gone a journey which I too may have to go, and of whom I ought to inquire, whether the way is smooth and easy, or rugged and difficult. And this is a question which I should like to ask of you who have arrived at that time which the poets call the “threshold of old age”: Is life harder towards the end, or what report do you give of it?’ https://pages.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/arch/greeks/PlatoRepublic.h... In 2,500 hundred years we have advanced much in technology. In philosophy, perhaps, none at all. |
|
|
For mathematical or in general scientific facts, I can build clear frameworks and descriptive languages, in which I can express my thoughts clearly. If I read someone else's, I can usually understand parts and even use them without understanding the whole thing (i.e. I can use a formula without being able to derive it).
In philosophy, any thought can be understood in a multitude of ways, especially depending on the way I come up with the thought. This means I can explain something as well as I want, the other person maybe can't ever understand it without walking the same path I took. Or the person can misunderstand me, without either of us ever noticing.
But, as much as formalization might help with these aspects, it would also lose much of the romantic and experiential aspects of philosophy, which would fundamentally change it.