BTW, do subscribe to my Substack, if you haven't yet done so! The latest post is about why mathematics survives the many errors in the literature—if it really was founded on pure logic, math would crumble to dust.
davidbessis.substack.com/p/the-curiou...

😅

Ça ne devait pas être mon époque, il n'y avait pas vraiment de démonstration, j'essayais d'expliquer ce que c'était qu'un énoncé mathématique, ce qu'était une démonstration, comment tout ça marchait, et d'expliquer quelques notions *avec les mains*.

Yes!

No, thanks for the ref.

Another notable omission is Poincaré. I'm more embarrassed about this one, as I hadn't done my homework and should have read him more early in the writing process — but reading him at the end of the process provided validation and reassurance.

As for Thom, he clearly influenced me (as I read a lot about catastrophe theory in my early 20s) but not through his philosophical writings and not in a way I can easily convey. Again, I wanted to write an accessible book, not a reference-complete one.

Thanks! Re Holton and Bachelard: I never the read the former, and only read the latter during the book writing process (as a friend suggested I should) and decided not include him, because it wouldn't have added incremental clarity and I didn't want to write an "erudite" book.

❤️

You overestimate me :)

@truerphilosophy.bsky.social: for what it's worth, your post is getting massively more views and likes on another site ;)