Being stirred by your last sentence, I have a lot of trouble reading some philosophy. I have read your comment several times, and I am still not sure what it is saying.
> I do have to note that the debate of "constructivism" vs. "platonism" doesn't really exist in Philosophy per se, because it relies on a kind of basic misunderstanding of Plato in general.
What is the misunderstanding, exactly? Did you end up addressing this? The next sentence is a long run-on, and I'm getting lost in what you're saying Plato actually said versus what you think people think he said. And I think I agree with another commenter that you are confusing Platonic and platonic.
And what does philosophy say about constructivism? If it doesn't address it versus some notion of idealized objects existing, then why does that matter to mathematics? It is a legitimate line of thinking and isn't an exclusively philosophical subject.
> Of course, many have attempted to answer the question of the psychological/biological explanation for how humans have shared concepts like this and shared, intelligible language. The most prominent thinkers of the 20th century, on both "sides" if you will, were Lacan on the "continental" end, and Chomsky on the "analytic" side. (Even though most Anglo-American--i.e. Analytic--philosophers would not accept Chomsky's logic as valid, and Lacan often referenced Anglo-American philosophy in his work...the categories are basically meaningless at this point.)
There are just names and labels here. What are you saying here?
> I do have to note that the debate of "constructivism" vs. "platonism" doesn't really exist in Philosophy per se, because it relies on a kind of basic misunderstanding of Plato in general.
What is the misunderstanding, exactly? Did you end up addressing this? The next sentence is a long run-on, and I'm getting lost in what you're saying Plato actually said versus what you think people think he said. And I think I agree with another commenter that you are confusing Platonic and platonic.
And what does philosophy say about constructivism? If it doesn't address it versus some notion of idealized objects existing, then why does that matter to mathematics? It is a legitimate line of thinking and isn't an exclusively philosophical subject.
> Of course, many have attempted to answer the question of the psychological/biological explanation for how humans have shared concepts like this and shared, intelligible language. The most prominent thinkers of the 20th century, on both "sides" if you will, were Lacan on the "continental" end, and Chomsky on the "analytic" side. (Even though most Anglo-American--i.e. Analytic--philosophers would not accept Chomsky's logic as valid, and Lacan often referenced Anglo-American philosophy in his work...the categories are basically meaningless at this point.)
There are just names and labels here. What are you saying here?