Clarisse Betina V.

Fortes PHLO 100

2014-72477 Dec. 3, 2017

Interrogating Mathematics

Mathematical truths are statements or propositions that are deemed true by virtue of
mathematical principles or concepts. The truthfulness of these statements is often established and
demonstrated through the construction of the mathematical proof with the use of quantitative
reasoning. Through constructing a proof, one can show that a mathematical proposition is not
created out of something arbitrary or dependent upon the subjective whims of a person.
Mathematical truths can be easier understood in comparison with ethical statements. The former
embodies precision more as it roots from a system of definitions which is already established
before the statements where even derived, while the latter’s truth value is still dependent on which
ethical principles are relatively adopted by a person. It is one of the reasons why mathematical
truths are deemed as timeless or eternally applicable once their truthfulness has already been
proven. In this sense, mathematics holds practicality. Its pragmatic sense has led mathematics to
be incorporated in almost every aspect of life. It has been used for various purposes: ranging from
explanation for scientific and natural occurrences (e.g. gravity, planetary motion, symmetry in
nature) to the most mundane activities in life (e.g. counting currency, measurements in cooking).
Its pragmatic use has been important so much so that its removal from life becomes unimaginable.
From this thought, it is only appropriate for people to refrain from taking mathematics for granted
and finally begin to exert efforts in gaining a deep understanding of the nature of something they
use and encounter almost each day.
One common perception towards mathematics is that its mathematical truths are
understood as already self-evident. When one says that “1+1=2,” no person would most probably
argue and raise contentions against it. Mathematical statements are often described as analytic
statements, or statements that are true in itself and are absurd to be taken as false. However, despite
this understanding, it is possible to attempt to interrogate the notion of self-evidence itself. What
does it really mean when one says that a statement is true in itself? If mathematical truths are
indeed self-evident, then what makes the construction of proof important? Of course, one may
argue that being self-evident is not tantamount to being apparent and that proof is still necessary
in order to make known a statement’s truthfulness. Nevertheless, it is still possible to interrogate
the origin of the logical foundations, definitions, and axioms which one uses for constructing a
proof. Do these building blocks of mathematics come from within humans themselves or do they
exist independently from the human mind?
The former question tackles the Kantian approach towards mathematics which argues that
mathematical principles are constructed by human beings themselves. However, in this sense, it is
possible to question whether logical foundations are just a matter of agreement among
mathematicians or logicians. Mathematics, then, becomes vulnerable to accusations of
arbitrariness. This perhaps resembles the kind of criticisms that modern rationalists received from
Enlightenment thinkers, that their source of knowledge, which comes from within, cannot be fully
trusted as it cannot be verified. Though, it may be argued that the foundations of mathematical
knowledge are not wholly arbitrary as they come from the use of reason.
On the other hand, the stance that mathematical principles have its own independent
existence constitutes the Platonic approach. With this view, one can question from what or where
did the existence of mathematics come from? Is there a Divine entity who created (and continues
to sustain) the existence of logical foundations? This line of questioning can be intermingled with
arguments regarding the existence of a Divine (which proves to be interesting as logic is also
commonly used to disprove the existence of God). Moreover, there is also a lack of clarification
as to how exactly do people discover mathematical principles. If reason were to be the answer,
then how do the Kantian and Platonic approaches differ from each other?
This discussion only encompasses one aspect of the nature of mathematical truths. There
are more to be considered and used for subject of discourse, such as other characteristics of
mathematics as being non-empirical, rigid, or formal. This shows that contrary to common belief,
mathematics is still open for questioning and investigation. Such is the reason why discourses
within philosophy of mathematics continue to exist. As the world continues to be measured
quantitatively, especially with the development of technology, questions regarding the foundations
of mathematics and logic also increasingly become relevant.