Latour, Kristeva, Derrida, Baudrillard, etc

[Tellos Athenaios]

This. Philosophy is mostly applicable to social science.

As for the problem with 2+2=4, the way I see it is that while we can all accept it discursively and there are obvious practical uses to it, there is no inherent meaning in the signified "2" nor the signified "+" and hence it is hard to defend their existence as a real and extant phenomenon. It is possible to at least conceive of a mathematical system built on a different numerical system which can explain the signified "4" without reference to "2" or "+" or which would not even seek to discover "4" but rather have a different formulation for that same signified. That is to say, "2+2=4" is only one way of expressing a problem (an explanation "=" of "4") and one discursively-grounded way of discovering it - "2+2". It is about breaking down our assumptions about what is inherent and instead showing that our ideas about reality are inescapably grounded in a socio-linguistic discourse.

The point is: Mathematics defines the concept of 2, namely 2 means "2 units". Then that's, you know, defined. By definition. You can define different numerical systems (sets and Fibonacci numbers spring to mind) but that doesn't alter the meaning of "2" or "2 + 2" in any way, you just write it differently. If you want you can describe 2 + 2 = 4 like this:

// notation using the empty set by induction, the value of a number is the cardinality of its representation, pretty much the apples example
{Ø, {Ø}} + {Ø, {Ø}} = {Ø, {Ø}, {Ø, {Ø}}, {Ø, {Ø}, {Ø, {Ø}}}}

Or this:

// notation using the Fibbonaci sequence, with F(0) = 1, F(1) = , F(2) = 2. If you want to be pedantic, 4 is F(2) . F(2).
F2 + F2 = 2 F2
// F1 + F2 = F3 = 3
// F3 + F3 = F4F1 = 6

I'm not sure what this all leads to, but how do we know that it doesn't lead anywhere without exploring it? Also note that I'm not defending the logic of the exploration, and this is only my guess at their argument, but rather I think that it is important that all disciplines are examined from a post-structuralist perspective because it can often push new things into the limelight that people had not considered before. It is happening right now with history and it will almost certainly happen to the sciences at some point.

As things stand it is considered proven that you cannot unify all of Mathematics in one big theory of everything, yet despite that nobody is rushing to investigate the meaning of '2'. There is not much point. It turns out you can represent '2' in any number of ways, but that is merely useful in specific problem domains in the same way a metaphor is a useful literary device -- it does not fundamentally alter anything in Mathematics. Similarly it is quite clear that the Standard Model is not a fully adequate description of the physics in the known universe, but people don't rush to investigate the meaning of the word "quantum" or "quark".

Fundamentally, people in other sciences don't reject observable reality nor do they focus solely on the specific labels we choose to assign to observations. If words are inadequate or insufficient to describe the situation fully, we'll make new ones. Perhaps not as philosophically satisfying, but a good deal more practical and productive.

but post-structuralism is only a small portion of philosophy, in a very specific time and also pretty much located in france, why would you strike down the entire discipline of philosophy based on their "errors". atleast that was the feeling i got from your post and which is why i wrote my response, maybe i misunderstood.

As I see it the job of philosophy is probably best explained by referring to the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, in which a bunch of philosopher's let Deep Thought decide the ultimate answer to life, the universe and everything. When presented with the result they are disappointed and Deep Thought asks them whether they are sure what their question means. Next, they promptly commission the construction of an even bigger computer to compute the question to the answer to the question itself.

That is all backwards. It's the job of the philosophers to shape the questions and analyse the answers (in the context of the questions). Post structuralism is exactly that backwards approach: content to apply Deep Thought to the task (of the meaning of words) and leave it at that. It doesn't really bother with formulating questions outside the process of its own analytical Deep Thought on hidden assumptions. But those questions are precisely where true philosophy begins; the precise meaning of words is merely a means to an end, an analytical side-show and not even a particularly interesting one at that. That's my objection to post structuralism.

[The Stranger]

As I see it the job of philosophy is probably best explained by referring to the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, in which a bunch of philosopher's let Deep Thought decide the ultimate answer to life, the universe and everything. When presented with the result they are disappointed and Deep Thought asks them whether they are sure what their question means. Next, they promptly commission the construction of an even bigger computer to compute the question to the answer to the question itself.

That is all backwards. It's the job of the philosophers to shape the questions and analyse the answers (in the context of the questions). Post structuralism is exactly that backwards approach: content to apply Deep Thought to the task (of the meaning of words) and leave it at that. It doesn't really bother with formulating questions outside the process of its own analytical Deep Thought on hidden assumptions. But those questions are precisely where true philosophy begins; the precise meaning of words is merely a means to an end, an analytical side-show and not even a particularly interesting one at that. That's my objection to post structuralism.

but you are kinda forgetting the context and time in which many of these works were written, most of them are negative works which criticize other works which posited a positive truth or depiction of reality. They often, atleast in the case of Derrida, tried to show that what these people wanted to do, was not possible and that the reason of why their endeavour failed was already embedded in the their work itself. They go into language so deeply because the people they were criticizing had pretty much enthroned language and attributed to it all kinds of powers that according to the post structuralists were not as straightforward and unproblematic as those people would have wanted everyone to believe.

as the name already implies, i think its a mistake to regard post structuralism as something independent.

[Papewaio]

In a war where are the philosophers deployed and do the winning nations spirit them away?

[The Stranger]

... what does that have to do with anything?

[Papewaio]

It's a utility argument. Which of course assumes that utility exists.

Essentially when push comes to shove how valuable are philosophers in a war? Does the opposing side value them enough to assassinate them or spirit them away post war?

[The Stranger]

i know its an utility argument but do you seriously believe everything should have utility?

also in line with what you say you should rephrase to "how useful are philosophers in a war?" i believe it has value, just as art and literature, happiness and glory. it is about as useful as shakespeare and tolkien or george martin would be in a war, but what else would men be fighting for? sure, the big bosses may all do it for greed and power but not the enlisted soldier.

and it is my sincerest hope, perhaps in vain, that philosophy will help avoid war in which case your question would be rendered obsolete. every intelligent soul in the western world has in one way or another been influenced by the products of philosophy, and i think in many ways we are better of for it. the same is true of science, but i have never seen them as things that oppose each other.

anyway i think were trailing off topic now. this was never about philosophy in general, just a certain wave.

[Papewaio]

Numbers are a concept. Not all numbers have a tangible physical counterpart. For instance imaginary numbers are an idea.

Now having said that. It doesn't mean that all numbers do not have a physical counterpart or that concepts cannot have a concrete counterpart. Money, and the value of it is a concept.

But I'm pretty sure that those who argue that there is no physical analog to numbers can quickly be tested and found wanting.