The best philosophers were mathematicians

Attached: 1560700704012s.jpg (173x250, 5K)

Whats wrong with that? Math is still part of philosophy even if it doesn't help us live meaningfully

>math doesn't help us live meaningfully

Attached: 1507428132684.png (586x578, 37K)

Why didn't they write a math book then nerd

This can be said about almost every form of art. Mathematics is in everything.

Attached: 1551763348778.jpg (1300x867, 239K)

Attached: 1561695384438.jpg (720x720, 59K)

They did that too

>Math is a humanism

Attached: 9898987.png (478x540, 35K)

This is such a normie brainlet thing to say.
You're just using an overly reductive definition of the word "mathematics" that's different from what OP ment.
>hehe everone is a mathematician since there is math in everything x)

No they didn't

I know it was simplistic but it was hardly reductive. Math IS in all forms of art and having a good grasp on it does improve you as an artist. Saying you can have a good grasp on prose without being able to also work with mathematics is simply untrue.
Now if we want to talk about being reductive "normie brainlet" is a pretty good place to start.

This is either weak bait or weak cope.

>Tfw Analyst and not geometer
Why was Plato so Analyistphobic?

>having a good grasp on it
As someone educated in mathematics I can tell you that extremely few artists have a "good grasp" of it and even fewer would find it useful.

Wasn't it just that the most educated men where philosophers and therefore they obviously knew math?

hot!

It's literally on the nose reductive. You're taking the OP's use of the word "mathematician" and reducing it to its most general form so that everything will fit under its umbrella. Also, most famous poets, artists, and writers have very little education in mathematics so your other claim is empirically incorrect.
I called it "normie brainlet" because reducing definitions like this is literally what pseudointellectuals do to feel like they have something profound to say.

Point one out

They also had the only schools in all the world

He was b&r

bertrand russell

Hegel, Lacan, Spinoza. the Greeks

I agree with both but only because I agree with your first point. Most artists do not have a good grasp on it and so do not find it useful. Most artists aren't very good. These things are related.
>broadening the scope of the conversation is reductive
>most famous artists and poets...
Never claimed to be profound, just speaking my mind.

Attached: 1555704841815.jpg (200x281, 12K)

That's a homosexual not an ancient philosopher

>Mathematics is in everything.
hehe

>Saying you can have a good grasp on prose without being able to also work with mathematics is simply untrue
It is so blatantly obvious that you have zero education in mathematics.

>Most artists do not have a good grasp on it and so do not find it useful.
Name one situation in which non-trivial mathematics would be relevant for an artist.

Alright? The take away here being you would rather tell me I am uninformed then attempt to explain why?
I do not consider higher level geometry to be trivial. But I suppose it depends on your perspective.

Attached: 1549926895484.jpg (600x500, 33K)

Descartes, Russel, Frege, Leibniz

> He doesn't know what math is because he only took high school computation courses

greeks didn't know much about analysis. Geometry was the thing.

>>the best philosophers were mathematicians
The best philosophers were good at logic, and the best mathematicians were also good at logic. That's what those two categories of people have in common. The main reason for the misconception that "the best philosophers were mathematicians" is simply that historically math has been the training ground of logical reasoning.

For instance, someone mentioned Plato in this thread, but as far as Plato was concerned math was simply propedeutic to philosophy because a study of geometry would give you a chance at training your ability to carry out logical deductions. One might ask: "Why math and not something else?" The reason for that is that math is concerned with the most simple aspects of reality. (There is that quote from von Neumann: "If people do not believe that mathematics is simple, it is only because they do not realize how complicated life is.") Therefore it stands to reason to use the simplest instances of logical deduction as a training ground for all kinds of logical deductions. In fact all the philosophers who were also (in one way or another) mathematicians were chiefly concerned with the logical foundations of math; Russell is a well-known example of this, but there are also Frege, Boole, Peirce, and others. People like Euler and Gauss (who were "real" mathematicians in the sense of working mathematicians involved in furthering math by discovering more technical results rather than investigating the foundations) had little to do with philosophy.

The bottom line is that both philosophers and mathematicians need a good grounding in logic, and basic mathematics just so happens to be the best way to make practice in that field.

Attached: kike cube.jpg (278x245, 24K)

Incredibly stupid post.

>greeks didn't know much about analysis
>*blocks your path*

Maybe Classical Greece didn't know much about it (though there was Eudoxus), but Hellenistic Greece laid the groundwork of what was to become the calculus.

Attached: archimedes.jpg (246x300, 7K)

Math is alright

(You)
Thanks for your persuasive refutation.

Attached: 1477262860480.jpg (229x343, 14K)

Why do you expect any of explanation(critique) to mathematician when it is literally numerology?
Yes, mathematician cannot touch anything about it. But that doesn't mean your opinion become true. It is just mean pseudo-academic jargon cannot be refuted, because there is nothing to refute in a first place.

Philosophers have big brains. Mathematicians have big brains. People who were philosophers and mathematicians... now just add 1+1 and you will get 2, and 2 is more than 1 so they should of have the biggest brains around.

Attached: 1557080525390.jpg (960x830, 77K)

This is really bad. It's as if... in the first grade class of the Logic department, the professor briefly handled in a chalkboard of this theory and then completely ignore it shortly after, and say, "Don't bring up this theory anymore."

My argument is mathematics is relevant to all art. "Mathematician" is a profession.

>My argument is mathematics is relevant to all art.
No. No man. There's clearly more of it. You, also said this.
>Most artists do not have a good grasp on it(math) and so do not find it useful. Most artists aren't very good.

That would be the same thing. Math is relevant to all art, most artists do not have a good grasp on art. Therefore most artists are mediocre. Whats the confusion here?

kys

If you're not /sci/fit/lit/, then you are not exerting your humanity appropriately. Not shitposting

You could put a lot more boards into that and it would still be true. You could always be doing more to "exert your humanity". At a certain point realizing what you want for yourself versus what you could be is what you'll end up with.

>artists do not have a good grasp on "art"
I assume that as math.

Wow man. You should answer 3 questions to that. I'm just picking to ya.
>Why then most mathematician are not good at art, at all?
>Why some of "good" artist are not good at math, at all?
>Why so much aesthetic theory didn't remotely care about math at all? I found Galois theory aesthetic so I try to find any remotely related thing of dealing mathematics as aesthetic. They kinda admit that it could be art (because the definition of art is an Extremely difficult subject), most aesthetic people do not try to deal with it at all.

Of course, this is not any inductive or deductive reasoning, you can critique with fallacy here. But Abduction Screams you are wrong in this right now.
And speaking of reasoning, burden of proof depends on you, so you should explain how "Math is relevant to all art" is truth in this much large extent.

Kek

>why are most mathematicians not good at art
Because they are not artists, they are mathematicians.
>why are some good artists not good at math
Depends on the artist. Time and place, cosmic luck, or divine inspiration. Or more than likely, they just never gave much thought to maths.
>aestheticism and math don't mix
Those focusing on aesthetic are terrified of what is grounded. So naturally they would argue against math even when they use it themselves.
>prove math is relevant to all art
I cannot think of a single medium in which math is not relevant. Prose and poetry in literature is as much math as it is words. Painting and sketching both work around geometry and basic arithmetic. Architecture and sculpting both require geometry and algebra. I could go on...

>greeks didn't know much about analysis
Archimedes practiced Integration over a thousand years before it was cool.

>I do not consider higher level geometry to be trivial.
What do you mean by that?
Sure, Algebraic geometry isn't trivial, but where is it, or something else, used in art?

Start by pointing to art where non-trivial math is relevant...

pretty soon you'll get art you can't distinguish from human art by multiplying pictures through a matrix

I'm not the guy you're arguing with, but I wanted to ask you something.

Your definition of maths is fairly broad (since you think even poetry has to do with maths because of meter and shit) but two can play this game: for example, I could define "grammar" in such a broad way to make it so that maths could be reduced to grammar and everything else as well. Maths is ultimately expressed in certain syntactic structures and it thus has grammatical features (in the first place, everything is expressed in one language or other). So even admitting you're right and maths is of fundamental importance in all forms of art, it would be equally correct to say that maths is ultimately reducible to grammar and thus what is really fundamental in all arts is language.

>says for the umpteenth time the increasingly nervous accelerationist

POST IT ALREADY.
Alluding to some possible future in which the claims could be true is not an argument.

>pretty soon you'll get art you can't distinguish from human art by multiplying pictures through a matrix
You are trying to talk about neural networks?

Terence McKenna

>humanism helps us live meaningfully

Mathematics keeps the autists from killing themselves. Don't be so rude.

>Mathematics keeps the autists from killing themselves
And enabled pretty much any modern technology, autists are good for something after all.

>trying
that's what they are

more generally anything human brains are doing are very complicated functions that are nevertheless mathematically encodable. there's going to be mathematical structure in anything ordered enough to actually be recognizable by humans, it's just a matter of finding and utilizing it. things like perspective lines or noticing that human aesthetics have something to do with the golden ratio are examples

Neural networks can learn to respond in better ways than humans.
Example, a computer uses randomized painting tools, will prioritize based on feedback.
All AI IS clumsy and may remain that way.

>that's what they are
It was a poor (and wrong) description of neural networks.

>more generally anything human brains are doing are very complicated functions that are nevertheless mathematically encodable. there's going to be mathematical structure in anything ordered enough to actually be recognizable by humans, it's just a matter of finding and utilizing it. things like perspective lines or noticing that human aesthetics have something to do with the golden ratio are examples
Entirely unrelated to the central thesis.
Just because brushing your teeth can be described mathematically doesn't mean you need a mathematics to keep your teeth clean.

FUCKING POST ART ALREADY, together with the non-trivial mathematics.

Yeah, I know the basics of neural networks. It's entirety unrelated to the topic of debate thought and is really something more then matrix multiplication.

>It was a poor (and wrong) description of neural networks.
you don't know what you're talking about and should stop pretending you do just because something sounds too simple to be right to you. a neural network is a matrix you multiply your input by. the complexity is finding the right matrix

you need mathematics to optimize keeping your teeth clean. kind of like the best artists like da vinci used math to be the best at art. any artist trying to draw something realistic while not paying attention to perspective lines is going to be bad

>ALREADY
not whatever person you were initially talking to

Attached: file.png (226x350, 197K)

I posted an image of an artist who uses that kind of geometry in his art as an example.
Architecture, masonry, and the use of color theory come to mind.
If by language you mean communication then yes but to say math and language are two separate things is ignoring their potential. I could argue they are synonymous on this broad level i'm working with.
And to be frank I do genuinely feel being broad about it is justified. I do see math in things like poetry, simple math yes but it is still there.

>Those focusing on aesthetic are terrified of what is grounded
They... NEVER thought like that. I would be surprised if you give any source on this.

>a neural network is a matrix you multiply your input by.
No, that's entirely inaccurate.
In fact you can have multiple layers with different numbers of neurons and in the end you end up with some kind of tensor, which represents your best guess at what is going on.
The point of a neural Network is to DETERMINE that Tensor, calling the prediction operation the neural network is ENTIRELY missing the point.

>you need mathematics to optimize keeping your teeth clean.
Or you waste 20 seconds doing it normally.

> kind of like the best artists like da vinci used math to be the best at art. any artist trying to draw something realistic while not paying attention to perspective lines is going to be bad
The question being debated is whether having a good grasp on mathematics (meaning knowledge of non-trivial mathematics i.e. stuff past the middle of an undergrad degree) is relevant to being an Artist, right now or in the past.

That you draw guiding lines or use some "nice" proportions is obviously true, but entirely irrelevant to the question, just as the topic of NNs.

>who uses that kind of geometry in his art as an example.
Which non trivial math?
And no I am not gonna waster 30 Minutes of my life doing the research for you.

>Architecture, masonry, and the use of color theory come to mind.
Which non trivial math?
And no, basic analytic geometry is not non-trivial.

>I could argue they are synonymous on this broad level i'm working with.
Then why do you choose to call it "maths" rather than "language"? You're arguing semantics for the sake of triggering Yea Forums brainlets who don't even know what an integral is. Calling it "language" would be just as correct but not controversial enough for your taste.

Its in the definition of the movement itself. Unsure what you mean. The movement is removed from what is grounded in reality. It strives for beauty removed from things that are mired in the day to day. How else would I phrase it?
>30 minutes to find out who Frank Llyod Wright is
Multiple forms of advanced geometry and algebra. He is one of the most infamous and successful architects of the last few hundred years. I would recommend you check him out at some point, very interesting man with a very interesting catalog of work.

>basic geometry is not non-trivial
Genuinely interested in what you consider non-trivial. If you where familiar with the kind of building the man was doing you would know it was nothing basic. And even if you aren't I find it hard to believe you refuse the idea something like masonry does not require a good grasp on math.
I prefer to see it as math. Being antagonistic wasn't my intention. When I am reading poetry I prefer to see the math in it, personal quirk I guess.

>In fact you can have multiple layers
those are different matrices that you are acting on separately because it works better for incremental optimization. when you're done you multiply all the matrices to get a matrix, dumbass.

>different numbers of neurons
you can multiply matrices of different sizes, moron

>some kind of tensor
you can arrange your box of numbers into a two dimensional box of numbers, faggot

>The point of a neural Network is to DETERMINE that Tensor
The neural network is the thing the engineer hands you to multiply your input by. The process of evolutionarily optimizing a matrix is not 'a neural network'

>just as the topic of NNs
nns and the structure of human brains is relevant because it is an allusion to the more general fact that there's mathematical structure in everything and you'll be better at that thing if you understand it. maybe humans haven't managed to understand that structure past a point. but it's there and we're getting better at computation. not going to claim modern high level mathematics is relevant to art in a way humans currently understand, though

>Multiple forms of advanced geometry and algebra.
WHAT MATHEMATICS??
Saying "algebra and geometry" is LITERALLY meaningless, I can't even come up with an analogy to describe how utterly unspecific that answer is.

>Genuinely interested in what you consider non-trivial
As I said before: "stuff past the middle of an undergrad degree", things like abstract Algebra, PDE's, functional Analysis, Algebraic geometry and such, you know the stuff that is NOT taught in highschool.

> If you where familiar with the kind of building the man was doing you would know it was nothing basic.
Are you talking about the Civil engineering aspect? Sure, there might be very much non trivial math involved (like FEMs, and some numerical analysis), but I wouldn't call that "Art", as it is not about the form, but how that form can be realized.

>you refuse the idea something like masonry does not require a good grasp on math.
WHAT MATHEMATICS?

>when you're done you multiply all the matrices to get a matrix, dumbass.
So all Neural Networks are Linear?
I HIGHLY doubt that.

>you can arrange your box of numbers into a two dimensional box of numbers, faggot
>you can multiply matrices of different sizes, moron
Okay, so here is my description of NNs.
"NNs is when you multiply and add numbers together", its just as accurate and true as yours.

>The process of evolutionarily optimizing a matrix is not 'a neural network'
Do you even read what I am saying?

>nns and the structure of human brains is relevant because it is an allusion to the more general fact that there's mathematical structure in everything and you'll be better at that thing if you understand it. maybe humans haven't managed to understand that structure past a point. but it's there and we're getting better at computation.
Yes, that is a discussion about a possible future of Art, possibly interesting, but not all that relevant.

>The movement is removed from what is grounded in reality. It strives for beauty removed from things that are mired in the day to day. How else would I phrase it?
What even is this? Majority of aesthetic theory after 1900s is completely opposite of this!

Also it is not even worth saying that "The movement is removed from what is grounded in reality" cannot be induced from "Those focusing on aesthetic are terrified of what is grounded" without extra presupposition from your opinion. It is near baffling that there is no current knowledge in aesthetic on you but you really absolutely try to say "math is essentially art".

>its just as accurate and true as yours
mine was more specific

Geometry is literally a form of maths, do you mean give a specific example of how the math is used? As if to imply you do not know why someone would need to measure a beam before placing it in a structure and how that weight would effect the rest of the building considering the load bearing infrastructure? Does none of this count as non-trivial math to you?
>not taught in highschool
You know you can take college level maths in highschool right?
>I wouldn't call that art
You don't consider architecture art?
>What mathematics
Pic related I guess. Really not sure what the break down in our communication is here, but your exasperation is alien to me.
>what even is this
The sentence before what you copied states it is the definition of the movement. A web search would tell you this. My use of the word terrified seems to be the issue. The refusal to accept reality is rooted in the fear of it, no matter what the intention is, beauty or otherwise.
>math is essentially art
I never said this.

Attached: 1544447629401.jpg (1920x1083, 222K)

>Geometry is literally a form of maths
Obviously, but it is also an enormously large field. Saying that "it involves geometry and algebra" is EXTREMELY unspecific.
What part of geometry? What part of Algebra?

>As if to imply you do not know why someone would need to measure a beam before placing it in a structure and how that weight would effect the rest of the building considering the load bearing infrastructure?
I talked about this, this is engineering, not art.
Art is concerned about the form, Engineering is concerned with how the form is realized.
If you want to include all of engineering inside of Art, then you are correct, but that would be retarded.

>Does none of this count as non-trivial math to you?
Its very basic linear Algebra, stuff like this is taught in Highschool and slightly more advanced in a mech. eng. degree (or similar) in the first semester.

>You don't consider architecture art?
DO YOU READ WHAT I SAY?
I said the ENGINEERING of a structure isn't Art, as it is concerned with HOW a Form is achieved not the form itself.

>Pic related I guess.
WHAT MATHEMATICS????
Where are the formulas, where are the theorems, the definitions or even ONE FUCKING MENTION of the field which it is related?
NOTHING mathematical is found within that Image.

>obviously
Then we agree it involves math, good.
>Art is concerned about the form
As is architecture, and so it is art, we agree on this. And so as it is obvious architecture as an art involves math this shows art requires maths.
Your exasperation at a lack of formulas is something you will have to live with. As you do not want to spend 30 minutes doing the work, nor do I wish to pull up specific examples of Wrights work to clear your ignorance on the subject.
To be clear it was you that wanted it to be "math beyond highschool". I only ever asserted good artists need good math, this remains true.

>The sentence before what you copied states it is the definition of the movement.
The reason why I didn't copied that is you seems to be you tried to really define any aesthetic at all. This is actually EVERY LOOT of your problem. Not only your definition of math is Incredibly vague and ambiguous, but also the definition of Art is vague and ambiguous.

>A web search would tell you this.
Google doesn't work anywhere in this debate. YOU even said that. Some user replyed you with claiming incredibly(not exaggeration) vague term, there's such that:
>If by language you mean communication then yes but to say math and language are two separate things is ignoring their potential.
To you, the rules are as soft as possible. To others, make the rules as strong as possible.

>"math is essentially art" - I never said this.
I'm sorry about it, I actually wanted to say "math is essentially art Hurr Durr Dirr" because that was more accurate depiction.

>Then we agree it involves math
Yes, I never denied that Art involves trivial mathematics like basic analytic geometry, used for e.g. perspective, and some basic algebra like proportions, but all of that are things a 7th grader knows.

> I only ever asserted good artists need good math
The ONLY example you gave was math pretty much any 15 year old knows, any somewhat educated person has good enough math to be an artist it seems.

If your thesis is "Art requires basic Highschool knowledge of mathematics any adult should have", we are in agreement, but then just say that.

>nor do I wish to pull up specific examples of Wrights work to clear your ignorance on the subject.
So you LITERALLY refuse to give an example.
I also clicked through the Wikipedia pages of ~10 randomly chosen buildings of his ZERO included any formula or seemed to involve non-trivial mathematics.

My challenge still stands:
NAME A WORK OF ART
NAME THE SPECIFIC!!! MATHEMATICS IT USES
Even pointing me to the fucking Wikipedia article would be enough.

>tfw math brainlet
>tfw brainlet all-around
Why live.

>Saying you can have a good grasp on prose without being able to also work with mathematics is simply untrue.
cringe