Mathematics in a Philosopher’s lens: In response to Reuben Hersh's "What is mathematics, really?"

                      Who would ever think that Mathematics can be associated with philosophy? Wait, let me correct that. Who would have thought that mathematics can be viewed in a philosophical context? Of course, they are mostly likely the persons we formally call as ‘mathematicians’, and we normally call them ‘math geeks’. In my own definition of that, they are people who are gifted with this amazingly enormous adoration for math. In other words, people who are obsessed with math.

                       As a normal person, I don’t really fancy math. Maybe I like it in some other forms like when I need to compute for the expenses I need to save for my dream summer escapade. What else? Hmmm, maybe in an economical context and other stuff relating to business and money. It’s called applied mathematics, but not the pure mathematics. It was one of the things that were discussed in the book. Yes, I’ve been familiar of the different subtopics relating math. But I never really realized the distinction between pure and applied mathematics. Another thing that was open up to me upon reading this book was I’ve been introduce to the different views upon mathematics. Not the trivial rants I often here at school but the intelligent and studied view about mathematics. I remembered the four views about mathematics which are the Platonism, formalism, structuralism and the humanism. In Platonism, math is viewed is something innate in nature. We didn’t invent it, and it exists even before the beginning of time. It is not born, and it does not die yet it is infallible and timeless. Platonism, in my own understanding, is the divine or mystical view of math, that it was like created by a deity, a God, because of its vastness and wide breadth. Formalism, on the other hand, views math as a meaningless game. It was something made up by humans and only exists in our minds. Structuralism didn’t really strike hard to me, but from what I recall, its view was that, they use math as representation of a physical entities and evaluating such. Like the method our teachers used to teach us e.g. Two melons plus three melons = Five melons. It’s something like that. But please correct me if I’m wrong. Last but not the least, the humanism view of math is that they believed that math is essential and is a part of our everyday life and should regarded as important and accepted, and should be pursued and loved. I’m not sure about that, but well, that’s my interpretation.

                 Among the four views about math, my favorite was the Platonism view. I do believe in God and I think it is the most rational views of all. Come to think of it. Mathematics tells about the absolute truths, and above all subjects ever created, only math can provide, a legitimate, exact right answer. The Formalism view was a bit negative in a sense. It might have a point but it makes math look that terrible and hateful. But I admit this kind of view is famous for students and one of the reasons why they resent math. They feel that most of it is useless. Well, in a sense, it might be true. I just don’t like the way it makes math so disgusting. The structuralism view also has truth in it. The humanism view was presented biasedly since the author prefers it among the four. But you know, it is already a self-evident truth. I think stating it makes it redundant.

                 Oh well, let’s proceed. I admit, my first attempt of reading this book was not really that welcoming. In fact, I hated it. But soon as I tried to go further, I was astonished by its radical truths and I was lost through the pages. Though in the latter parts, I really didn’t read it word per word (because of I think it is full of trifle and only fun facts), some notions of it are fine. I was stimulated with idea of mixing philosophy with math. This book really did a great job in doing so, though I would not say that this book is perfect. There are also lots of mishaps, but I understand it’s only for sample purposes. Nonetheless, I was glad that this book reiterated and expanded my view towards math. It gave me a new perspective about math.

              Before I was just learning at the same time, ranting about why I should study these things which was in fact, not seen in the real word. I also remember the two reasons why proofs exist. If I haven’t mentioned earlier, proofs is the foundation of math. Math wouldn’t exist without proof because math is almost certain at all times. Okay, let’s get it started, proofs are taught to us, first, is to certify this truth while the second reason is for understanding. In the book, it was also mentioned that the first reason was often use to in school but the author argued that it is better to apply the second method. I agree that the goal of every learning is understanding. Or in this case, proofs should be known to be understood. I think he’s right.

             The rest of the book talks about the impacts of math in the society especially in religion and mystical beliefs which are almost conspicuous and boring, that’s why  I never really read it.

                I love philosophy more than I love math. That’s what makes this book somehow interesting. But still, I believe that my heart beats for other thing. Math’s not for me.