>>436
YES. I think you symbolic logic is more what you mean though. All the real new work is symbolic-logic based in places. It depends what the person you ask has in mind when you say "philosophy" though. As with most academic/technical things, most people mean "anyone with a state license to call themself a doer of the thing". And remember in this case "state" means "from people in upper-class circumstances", as always.

SAGE has been used.

>>437
>All the real new work is symbolic-logic based in places.

That's pretty great. I don't think it's how you think it is though. From what I've seen, philosophy people are fairly progressive and the large influence of the well-to-do is due to the availability of education more than anything else.

>>438
you took the words I gave you and decided most of them weren't important. This is why we can't have nice things.

SAGE has been used.

>>439
I understand that they're important, I'm disagreeing with you. You're assuming I don't understand merely because I disagree, THIS is why we cant have nice things.

By restricting the scope of philosophy to what can be expressed mathematically, you handicap it greatly. And no, any idea in English cannot be expressed mathematically. Good luck expressing "quixotic unrestrained passion" in ZFC. Saying that all philosophy should be based in math is like saying that the only numbers we should think about are the ones we can measure with a yardstick.

In fact, as soon as you can represent something symbolically it ceases to be pure philosophy and becomes an axiomatized sub-branch of mathematics.

>>437
"All the real new work is symbolic-logic based"

Please. Not only is that an idiotic and arbitrary statement, it is just straight up wrong.

>>445
>Good luck expressing "quixotic unrestrained passion" in ZFC.
That's certainly not impossible since passion is generally experienced by physical objects. The non BS parts of passion are certainly expressible. Moreover, In the metalanguage of mathematics, people employ nearly unrestricted comprehension, so any sentence in english is fair game as long as it's contradiction free. In some contexts even contradictions are allowed.

>>447

The person experiencing passion is irrelevant, what is important is communicating the idea of it. The "BS" parts of passion are inherent parts of the idea that you can't just chop off so the remains can be expressed in terms of sets.

Once you turn a concept into a statement in mathematics, information is lost in the transformation. For example, you could approach a word problem and produce an equation that describes it, but if all you have is that equation and want to know what it describes you're out of luck. The equation could describe anything that happens to have those properties, including but not limited to the original problem.

Philosophy and mathematics cannot be one and the same without sacrificing the specific ideas that make philosophy relevant to our lives.

>>436
No, absolutely not. This is cargo cult science.
http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm

Math is a powerful and useful tool, and it should be applied where it makes sense and contributes to understanding. Making everything mathematical just because it worked well in other disciplines and it looks impressive is idiocy. I wasted years of my life studying economics, so I know the damage this mindset can do.

>>476
>I wasted years of my life studying economics
It's just sad people are coming to terms with this only now