Are there other non-numerical things? — Raymond

I used to teach point-set topology. A delightful topic.

I try be brief :smile:

[My math paper:

1. log24=2

Therefore...

2. The Riemann Hypothesis is true.] — Agent Smith

You funny. :cool:

Your modesty adorns you! :smile:

Point-set topology. Sounds delicious indeed! I had a dream about related stuff (I think). I got entangled between loads of things resembling Feynman diagrams in empty space. With all kinds of colors. Somehow the dream told me something. The continuum not being point-like maybe?

You funny. :cool: — jgill

Glad I made you laugh! :smile:

:up:

Hey! If you charge me then jgill should be charged too!

I've found 'freethinking that's invisble in plain sight' preferable to conspicuous philosophizing (or worse – sophistry) in almost all situations (i.e. more often than not, being a smart ass makes one less of a bore than being a smarty-pants). YMMV :mask: — 180 Proof

I very much like your response to this OP. Can you please say just a little more about the attributes of 'freethinking that's invisible'?

That 'loaded' phrase only is intended to add emphasis to – put a finer point on – the rest of the paragraph preceeding it.

The paradox of weirdness.

Many people are weird enough to catch our attention, but not weird enough to make any breakthroughs. :sad:

This is done to the tiniest details to avoid inroads of criticism. You explain everything, like in a math proof, leaving nothing to guesswork — god must be atheist

Which begs the question: what the % of Philosophers are "over thinkers"?
My guess is quite high

Can Ritalin cure philosophy?

Many people are weird enough to catch our attention, but not weird enough to make any breakthroughs. — Agent Smith

With a few small adjustments, that could be one of Nietzsche's. :up:

:up:

Which begs the question: what the % of Philosophers are "over thinkers"?
My guess is quite high — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I think many of the street philosophers (including almost all participants on this forum / board, while present company is almost always excepted) are not over-thinking, but re-hashing their pet theories, of which nobody has too many. So they keep rehashing the same theory/ies until they are surprised that others can't believe them, when they reveal them to the public. I would not call it over-thinking... I would call it thinking about the same thing over and over again.

Well, here's a difference between a PhD math thesis and a publishable math paper: In the thesis the grad student is encouraged to spell most arguments out in at least some detail, but a math research paper frequently glosses over any details that have relatively brief proofs and experienced mathematicians can be expected to fill in the blanks. — jgill

I would venture to guess that in BOTH cases it is not necessary to spell out existing knowledge, as long as one properly references the source. I am talking "publishable math paper" in the academic sense. That is, ruled vertically and horizontally, with light blue printer ink, slightly slanted to the right, with parallelepipedons (or whatever the heck skewed rectangles are called) that can house one digit or character neatly within themselves each.

The distinction in philosophy writing is the same, except the paper does not have to be ruled: instead, it itself has to rule. Preside above and over other papers and boss them around.

I would venture to guess that in BOTH cases it is not necessary to spell out existing knowledge, as long as one properly references the source. — god must be atheist

Clearly references suffice for existing knowledge. I'm speaking of steps in proofs that can be sketched out, knowing that experienced readers can fill in those steps.

I'm speaking of steps in proofs that can be sketched out, knowing that experienced readers can fill in those steps. — jgill

Absolutely.

In today's life, the world only belongs to the stupid, the insensitive and the agitated. The right to live and succeed is conquered now with the same procedures that confinement to an insane asylum is conquered: the inability to think, amorality and hyperexcitement.

In today's life, the world only belongs to the stupid, the insensitive and the agitated. The right to live and succeed is conquered now with the same procedures that confinement to an insane asylum is conquered: the inability to think, amorality and hyperexcitement — Bernardo Soares

Marvelous! :clap:

In today's life, the world only belongs to the stupid, the insensitive and the agitated. The right to live and succeed is conquered now with the same procedures that confinement to an insane asylum is conquered: the inability to think, amorality and hyperexcitement. — Bernardo Soares

You are stealing your material from the "Sermon on the Mound."

I would say studying philosophy definitely made me "weird"
As a child I was pretty conventional, a theist, athletic and popular and well liked.
Taking philosophy in first year undergrad completely dislodged my conventional thinking and put me into a spin of confusion that persists decades later
It also made me "different" than others
One example: I have moved (thanks to Dennet) into a view of my self as a far from integrated string of narrative spewing from my brain
Most people have never really even thought about what the self is...
that difference in thinking definitely leads to disconnect and alienation
If I ever had kids, I would definitely steer them away from philosophy, ignorance is indeed bliss