2 deleted 566 characters in body
source | link

So I am to discuss the question with reference to two areas of knowledge. I chose to talk about mathematics and the arts (including literature, visual arts, music, etc.). For mathematics, I talked about the existence of mathematical uniformity in nature e.g. Fibonacci sequence, and I also talked about uniformity in proof by mathematical induction.

For the arts I said film industries make use of uniformities of facial expressions to convey emotions to a wide range of audience. However, since an artists' interpretation of the world may differ from reality, due to their sense perception e.g. a visual painting may not be so uniform in a sense. Different artists may have various interpretations of a single scene or landscape.

I put a lot of thought into this, but am still confused in terms of the underlying juxtaposition of the question and the philosophical difficulty. My teacher said that this is one of the most difficult philosophical questions he has come across, but I fail to understand or see why this statement is difficult, which makes me think that I dont understand it.

So I am to discuss the question with reference to two areas of knowledge. I chose to talk about mathematics and the arts (including literature, visual arts, music, etc.). For mathematics, I talked about the existence of mathematical uniformity in nature e.g. Fibonacci sequence, and I also talked about uniformity in proof by mathematical induction.

For the arts I said film industries make use of uniformities of facial expressions to convey emotions to a wide range of audience. However, since an artists' interpretation of the world may differ from reality, due to their sense perception e.g. a visual painting may not be so uniform in a sense. Different artists may have various interpretations of a single scene or landscape.

I put a lot of thought into this, but am still confused in terms of the underlying juxtaposition of the question and the philosophical difficulty. My teacher said that this is one of the most difficult philosophical questions he has come across, but I fail to understand or see why this statement is difficult, which makes me think that I dont understand it.

So I am to discuss the question with reference to two areas of knowledge. I chose to talk about mathematics and the arts (including literature, visual arts, music, etc.).

I put a lot of thought into this, but am still confused in terms of the underlying juxtaposition of the question and the philosophical difficulty. My teacher said that this is one of the most difficult philosophical questions he has come across, but I fail to understand or see why this statement is difficult, which makes me think that I dont understand it.

    Tweeted twitter.com/StackPhilosophy/status/932601047767552000
1
source | link

“Without the assumption of the existence of uniformities there can be no knowledge.”

So I am to discuss the question with reference to two areas of knowledge. I chose to talk about mathematics and the arts (including literature, visual arts, music, etc.). For mathematics, I talked about the existence of mathematical uniformity in nature e.g. Fibonacci sequence, and I also talked about uniformity in proof by mathematical induction.

For the arts I said film industries make use of uniformities of facial expressions to convey emotions to a wide range of audience. However, since an artists' interpretation of the world may differ from reality, due to their sense perception e.g. a visual painting may not be so uniform in a sense. Different artists may have various interpretations of a single scene or landscape.

I put a lot of thought into this, but am still confused in terms of the underlying juxtaposition of the question and the philosophical difficulty. My teacher said that this is one of the most difficult philosophical questions he has come across, but I fail to understand or see why this statement is difficult, which makes me think that I dont understand it.