Is philosophy exact in itself without expressing the same in the forms of mathematics?

Question

This is a philosphical question. Please answer within the line of thought. Thanks and have a great day!

Answer 1

This is a nontrivial matter; you might wish to consider brushing up on Philosophy of Mathematics and formalization of philosophical issues.

Generally speaking, I am not a big fan of Wikipedia, however, their article on Philosophy of Mathematics seems to be a decent and concise place for you to begin your journey.

Great Question, BTW.
.
.
.
EDIT: Not even a non-rigorous study of Gödel's incompleteness theorems should be considered in isolation and/or out of [their philosophy of mathematics] context - least of which by a novice in the field. That said, and in my humble opinion, it is NOT even directly relevant to the question at hand. ... Furthermore, overenthusiastic claims that the theorems have widespread implications in all areas of philosophy and cognitive sciences are generally NOT well-received. ... Indeed, even by reading the Wikipedia article on Gödel's incompleteness theorems - as our dear friend down here has recommended - chances are you will soon arrive at the same independent conclusion.
.
.
.

Answer 2

The use for logic is the use for mathematics and philosophy and more. Actualized philosophy as human mind is anything that mind uses. Human mind is only exact as its self, not as other.

The Will is positive, the Judgment is negative.

Addition: 'Is philosophy exact in itself without expressing the same in the forms of mathematics?' I doubt the same could be expressed as efficiently in mathematics as n ordinary trained descriptive language, but there is no reason to separate ordinary language from mathematics, rather, mathematics is an extension of and for ordinary language.

Answer 3

That depends on whether or not you can know without logical or mathematical proof.

It has been proven by mathematicians, logicians, and philosophers all, that all truth can not be proven logically.

Philosophy is the only one of the three which has an alternative, but it is not something which can be taught in the physical medium of sense, so its very existence is in question by those who do not know or practice it.

The first step is to know that it is knowable by knowing it is possible; only complete objectivity can allow for this... One should have no love, or hate, or any assumption, or knowledge, until this has been discovered. Until such time as they can do that, they will remain limited by logical argument, and sensory observation, viewed through the lens of their desires...

God bless.

Answer 4

As asked, the answer to the question is "yes". Philosophical proofs, done correctly, require exactitude. They (generally), reach a single conclusion rather than a range of conclusions. Remember, a value can be "exact" and "precise" without being necessarily accurate. The term "exact" refers to precision and lack of deviation, rather than absolute "correctness".
Therefore, a conclusion drawn by philosophical means has the potential to be every bit as exact as any mathematical statement because, when properly executed, the method only allows a single answer.

Answer 5

See the link below (it can answer your question) – I hate the philosophy of mathematics!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

Gödel's incompleteness theorems

Answer 6

I always think that philosophy helps us a lot by making our mind more clear by a particular incident.It also will make us expressive.At sometimes we should also believe in our inner consciousness.

Answer 7

Of course not....philosophy is subjective, it is based on the personal and unique experience of humans, it does not posses the objectivity of math which is constant throughout the universe...