The Review A Few Brave Souls Dared Read

 (A Book Review on What Is Mathematics Really? by Reuben Hersh)

           First and foremost, I’d like to inform the readers that I’d really suck at this book review for the same reasons why a lot of people suck at math, physics, geometry, algebra, calculus and the likes: they are not just that interesting. One fun fact from me, of me is that in the top 10 list of subjects I dislike the most, both philosophy and mathematics are in there and a combination of them would really knock me dead. I’ve been trying hard to accommodate the thoughts from the book to make powerful points but you know and I know that it just won’t work with me. However, the show must go on and without further ado, I’ll somehow apply magic dust on your eyes and entertain you for a while. (Not bad for an intro don’t you think?)

            First point of interest, the author Mr. Reuben Hersh is one hell of a writer. And by that, I don’t mean it in a pleasant way but the opposite. He is one of those unlucky authors which I don’t get the way of writing. As much as Hersh wants people to be involved in the non-ending cycle of debate on the philosophical aspects of mathematics, he had not noticed he was throwing very weak arguments. Moreover, these weak points when added together I guess wouldn’t even sum up to a very convincing point that could give him leverage to what he is trying to tell the readers. So if you are looking for no brainer and easy reads, then I’d suggest you must leave this book alone.

            Second point of interest, the conventional philosophies which Hersh repeatedly debunked in the book. Hersh could not be more specific to abominate Platonism, formalism and intuitionalism. An honest to heavens opinion, I even think that if it weren’t for these philosophies, this book could not have come to realization. Thus, the book was a touch-up product to mask those three mainstream philosophies. Yes, Hersh got his points right, some even completely sharp like actual mathematical practice is lacking from the classic writings on mathematics. However, it can be inferred from his words that he insists what he suggests is not necessarily new, thus, just an aggregation of concepts from other great minds which he cited and just analyzed to come to a breakthrough. Giving his new concept of “humanism” and mathematics being socio-cultural constructs a benefit of the doubt, it would still be impossible to accept that other realities like if another race happens to have a well-built community, they’d possess mathematics that is either with or against ours. Maybe if you are talking to a 5-year old then he’d be glad you believe in extra-terrestrials but since Hersh wishes to address a science-oriented and math-oriented audience, it’d be best to sugarcoat it as his theory “being a laughing stock”.

            Third point of interest, Hersh’s overwhelming trust on his proposed idea of “humanism”. Since Hersh believes that mathematics is a socio-cultural construct, then it’d be logical to say that he believes that anyone who knows mathematics social nature would appreciate it more than those who does not. Assuming that I’ll give him a point for that, then he is obviously on the lead. However, if he believes that mathematics social nature can be learned, then all the other practices which was not appreciated through its social evolution will now be considered. And when you consider other practices like philosophy and literature, they are still considered lousy practices especially for young students. Thus, his argument would be invalid and that I guess is a negative 1 for Hersh. I believe Hersh has been pretty cornered or shall I say boxed with his thoughts (the typical mathematician stereotype).

            Fourth point of interest, his continuous undermining of the ace contributors of the evolution of mathematics. Unconsciously or maybe consciously, Hersh has been setting a distinct pattern of presenting what a certain famous guy accomplished in the name of mathematics and debunks it. Yes, he has been sympathetic with these people and there is nothing much debatable about this. However, Hersh for me stepped across the fine line between what is critiquing and what is undermining. If you’d want to make you point and prove something, it is not necessary and in fact it is not needed to really flail out the other guys from the competition. One is simply entitle to give his rash or nice opinion but not to the extent of literally squeezing these people’s idea or putting them down the paper shredder. So if you are a nice guy/gal looking for friendly competition between mathematicians that has been arguing on the philosophical context of mathematics, then I’d suggest you crash this book out your list.

            Last point of interest, and possibly the only positive thing I’ve got to say about the book is that it is one well-thought masterpiece. Masterpiece in the sense that it is not every day that someone indulges himself/herself to the realms of philosophy and mathematics all at the same time. Hersh believes that there could be an easier way for general people to understand and love math like he does and as he journeyed on, he fortunately found the answer in his own terms. Still, I think that Hersh forgot to account the fact that if he intends to dig for the philosophy of mathematics, then he should not see it from the binoculars of science. That is because science clouds the overlapping concerns of philosophy. Also, Hersh forgot to acknowledge his limits too, which of course was noticeable even when you still reading the first chapter overview.

            If you are looking for the perfect fit of philosophy and mathematics in a weird adventure then this is one of the few good reads you must consider. I maybe contradicting what I said in the earlier parts but what I am sharing right now is what I think people should look for if they’d really consider reading the book and if they are interested in whatever things I’ve reviewed about the book.