The "Easy" Problem

[ragashree]

2 + 2 = ?


Any philosophical thoughts on how to go about this one?

 

[Helios]

2 + 2 = ?


Any philosophical thoughts on how to go about this one?

I think this thread is an excellent starting point. A fount of philosophical perspicuity if ever there was one.

 

[spin-1/2-nuclei]

well I could start by trying to debate the nature of the symbol used for the number 2 and given that each individual perceives the world differently how can we even be sure that each person experiences the symbol the same way... or even that anyone else is really here?

Yeah.. that's all I got.. nobody will ever accuse me of being a philosopher..

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

It equals "nothing that will pay the rent" in some of the ghettos around here.

 

[Stanton Moore]

2 + 2 = ?


Any philosophical thoughts on how to go about this one?

Is there a bridge nearby that you could jump off? That might clear your mind of the incessant flood of non-sense.:hi:

 

[Oberon]

Assuming the common contemporary definitions of your terms, the answer is as follows:

2 + 2 = 4

If your definitions differ, your answer may also.

 

[Poki]

2 + 2 = ?


Any philosophical thoughts on how to go about this one?

Thats not a problem, just a question. Please define the problem and we can decide if its easy or not

 

[erm]

Any philosophical thoughts on how to go about this one?

Play it safe:

2 + 2 = 2 + 2

 

[miss fortune]

I would find a calculator, however, I don't feel like getting up at the moment

 

[ragashree]

I think this thread is an excellent starting point. A fount of philosophical perspicuity if ever there was one.

I'm sure Coberst would have something interesting and pertinent to contribute, if he was really human ever actually responded to threads in the manner in which he starts them.

well I could start by trying to debate the nature of the symbol used for the number 2 and given that each individual perceives the world differently how can we even be sure that each person experiences the symbol the same way... or even that anyone else is really here?

Yeah.. that's all I got.. nobody will ever accuse me of being a philosopher..

This is a promising start nevertheless, it provides some definite foundational material to build further complications of the issue upon.

It equals "nothing that will pay the rent" in some of the ghettos around here.

Is there a bridge nearby that you could jump off? That might clear your mind of the incessant flood of non-sense.:hi:

This raises the question "To jump or not to jump?" It's an equally valid and interesting one, but offtopic for this thread. Maybe you could start a new one on it if it interests you that much?

Assuming the common contemporary definitions of your terms, the answer is as follows:

2 + 2 = 4

If your definitions differ, your answer may also.

Since when does philosophy rely on mere common contemporary definitions? Philsophical activity would cease if recieved wisdom was never to be questioned!

Thats not a problem, just a question. Please define the problem and we can decide if its easy or not

That's what we're working on

 

[Oberon]

Since when does philosophy rely on mere common contemporary definitions?

It doesn't... but the conventional answer is an appropriate jumping-off point for forays into how the answer changes when the common contemporary definitions are altered. My answer wasn't the end of the discussion... it was the beginning.

 

[Poki]

That's what we're working on

Ok, problem is you dont know how to add. If you did why would you be asking that question? To prove I know the answer? But in that case what is the problem? Do you need to rely on me for my knowledge? Why would you need to rely on me? Is it because you dont know how to add? Why wouldnt you know how to add? Have you ever tried figuring it out on your own? Why havnt you tried figuring it out on your own? Is it even possible to figure that out on your own. Its just symbols. Its not like someone handed you 2 sets of things and asked how many you had. How do you even figure out what symbols mean unless you have more to go on. Is that even a question in the first place.

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

What? Each symbol represents some imaginary number of imaginary objects.

2 = 2 objects. So, 2+2=4?

What's going on I here?

 

[Poki]

What? Each symbol represents some imaginary number of imaginary objects.

2 = 2 objects. So, 2+2=4?

What's going on I here?

But why is 2+2=? even a problem? Its not really a problem at all unless you dont know how to add. But even in that case WHY do you need to know what 2+2 is. That is the real problem. Follow the why's backward. The person who asked you what 2+2 is may be nothing more then what they think they need to do to solve the problem, so 2+2 is actually a part of the solution not the problem...what is the problem?

edit: soory if my wording comes out jumbled. English is my native language, but language is not my native way of thinking.

 

[ragashree]

It doesn't... but the conventional answer is an appropriate jumping-off point for forays into how the answer changes when the common contemporary definitions are altered. My answer wasn't the end of the discussion... it was the beginning.

Ok, problem is you dont know how to add. If you did why would you be asking that question? To prove I know the answer? But in that case what is the problem? Do you need to rely on me for my knowledge? Why would you need to rely on me? Is it because you dont know how to add? Why wouldnt you know how to add? Have you ever tried figuring it out on your own? Why havnt you tried figuring it out on your own? Is it even possible to figure that out on your own. Its just symbols. Its not like someone handed you 2 sets of things and asked how many you had. How do you even figure out what symbols mean unless you have more to go on. Is that even a question in the first place.

See? It is a problem, precisely because of the lack of context. Your questions begin to identify the difficulties this causes. Are you doubting your own ability to find a solution without further information yet?

 

[Poki]

See? It is a problem, precisely because of the lack of context. Your questions begin to identify the difficulties this causes. Are you doubting your own ability to find a solution without further information yet?

No, I am just playing. A problem has yet to be defined. Do you see the problem with that line of thought I went through?

 

[Bamboo]

My dad famously (in my family circle) referred to math as "mental masturbation."

What's your point here?

 

[ragashree]

No, I am just playing. A problem has yet to be defined. Do you see the problem with that line of thought I went through?

Many Now the question is, which one is most pertinent?

 

[Oaky]

2 + 2 = ?


Any philosophical thoughts on how to go about this one?

Alright, I'm quite bored anyway.

We can say the "?" Exists as an unknown entity that can be revealed through means of logically reconfiguring what it equals to. Or if one is too lazy to do that one can simply substitute the "?" with what it equals to therefore solving by means of allowing the original entities to stay as they are.

There are an infinite number of ways to reconfigure the known entities and it is by common human expectation to choose the one that exists as a single entity in the numerical sense known as the sum.

It is therefore comfortable to announce that to solve the "?" entity one must find the sum of the existing entities already known.

2 + 2 = 4

 

[Little_Sticks]

2 + 2 = 4
2^2 = 4

2 + 2 = 4 = 2^2

Thus

2 + 2 = 2^2

3 + 3 = 6
3^3 = 27

3 + 3 != 3^3

Thus

2 + 2 = 2^2 and is special and unique

So to answer the philosophical question, you are 2 + 2 and are a special and a unique person