I think “philosophical questions” are the ones that are fun to argue endlessly about even if we’re too confused to actually solve them decisively and convincingly.
The thing that I find attractive about logic and ‘foundations of mathematics’ is that no one argues endlessly about philosophical questions, even though the subject matter is full of them.
Instead, people in this field simply assume the validity of some resolution of the philosophical questions and then proceed on to do the real work.
What I think that most fans of philosophy fail to realize is that answers to philosophical questions are like mathematical axioms. You don’t justify them. Instead, you simply assume them and then work out the consequences.
Don’t care for the consequences? Well then choose a different set of axioms.
The thing that I find attractive about logic and ‘foundations of mathematics’ is that no one argues endlessly about philosophical questions, even though the subject matter is full of them.
Instead, people in this field simply assume the validity of some resolution of the philosophical questions and then proceed on to do the real work.
What I think that most fans of philosophy fail to realize is that answers to philosophical questions are like mathematical axioms. You don’t justify them. Instead, you simply assume them and then work out the consequences.
Don’t care for the consequences? Well then choose a different set of axioms.