What do you actually think is philosophy and what do you propose instead? How do you know your “tools” are better? Better by which criteria? Why those and not others? Even just attempting to answer any of these questions is doing philosophy. You can’t escape it. Framing philosophical questions in the language of say, set theory, like Russel did, dosn’t answer them. It’s just using another language. The Vienna Circle thought (inspired by Wittgenstein) that using a formal language would make the answers perfectly clear. And the one who refuted them, proofed them wrong, was no other then the one they admired the most, Wittgenstein himself. No one will take your ideas seriously, if you don’t engage with this history first. I’m not saying it’s pointless or stupid, it might well be worthwhile. You just have to do it first or end up embarrassingly chasing around the first idea that pops into your head. Like “I feel sure about my answers in a math test and unsure about my essay in philosophy class, that’s why math is the best and philosophy is stupid” this is the infantile and emotional level your understanding of both philosophy and math is at currently. Or maybe it isn’t, but it sure seems this way, since you haven’t clearly articulated your positions, nor made any attempt to formulate an argument for them. Not using normal language and not using mathy language.

Mathematical proofs aren’t generally agreed.

Yes, they are. Have you seen the controversies around many recent proofs? Proofs are getting so long and topics so specialized, that simply just reading them takes for ever. Some important ones have only been checked by one or two people. Some have been out for years and are still controversial, because no one claims to have some the immense work to actually checked them. That’s one of the reasons why proof assistants are used in the first place. They help, but they come with their own problems and challenges.

This is why ethics has failed. It has been built on the unstable foundation of philosophy instead of on the solid foundation of mathematics.

This is such a very old idea and you’re not the first one to have it. Just try it yourself as an exercise. Is like to see how you get an ought from an is with pure math. Every one who tried to build ethics on math only failed. Please, just google it or read some of the links I shared. Philosophers are totally familiar with very advanced math and use it. Again read some articles on like set theory or quantum mechanics on plato.stanford.edu to verify yourself. It’s already being used and always has. Even the antique philosophers were mathematicians. They invented logic and geometry. Every philosophy student through antiquity and the middle ages up to the Renaissance was forced to learn them before getting to the more advanced topics.

No matter how smart you are, other smart people probably had very similar ideas before you, tried to formalize them, got challenged, responded, tried again and so on. The history of their work is the history of philosophy. Trying to do better without even reading any of it would fit the definition of being naive.

just like human language proofs require the reviewers brains to be bug free to a point. The repeated verification makes proofs as correct as anything can get.

Exactly, I’m glad you understand. There’s no epistemological certainty in math, just like in normal language. We have to make do with being pretty certain, as good as it gets. I like lean for it’s intended purpose: advancing math. No one involved in lean is seriously claiming it produces some kind of religious absolute certainty. Neither is anyone trying to replace philosophy.

Math can’t elevate anything above philosophy, because in a sense, it is part of philosophy, one of the parts using specialized language, specifically the part that is concerned with tautologies.

Have you clicked on the links to the philosophy wiki I provided? Maybe read about what a brilliant mathematician and philosopher has written on the philosophy of mathematics to convince yourself, that philosophy of mathematics is valuable and necessary (wether you agree with his specific point of view or not). You’re already engaging in philosophical debate yourself. Your claims about the nature of philosophical arguments and mathematical proofs are themselves philosophical in nature.

Also, though you haven’t clearly articulated your philosophical position, it seems to be close to the one of the famous Vienna Circle , which was inspired by Wittgenstein, but later rejected by him. It’s generally agreed today, that their project of logical empiricism has failed. You can find the critiques of the various points in the article above.

It’s not about those specific proofs. You’re claiming, that every possible proof stated in lean will always halt. Lean tries to evade the halting problem best as possible, by requiring functions to terminate before it runs a proof. But it’s not able to determine for every lean program it halts or not. That would solve the halting problem. Furthermore, the kernel still relies on CPU, memory and OS behavior to be bug free. Can you be sure enough in practice, yeah probably. But you’re claiming absolute metaphysical certainty that abolishes the need for philosophy and sorry, but no software will ever achieve that.

Lean runs on C++. C++ is a turning complete, compiled language. It and it’s compiler are subject to the halting problem.

They already knew that. You’re treading an old worn out logical positivist path, that was inspired by Wittgenstein who worked closely with Russell (both mathematicians and philosophers) and he later saw his error, rejected his positivist followers and explained how truth is not a correspondence to facts, rather meaning is derived from use in language. This applies to all languages, formal and informal, including math and logic.

I explicitly refer to your second paragraph.

Yes, you absolutely can argue computer verified proofs. They are very likely to be true (same as truth in biology or sociology: a social construct), but to be certain, you would need to solve the halting problem to proof the program and it’s compiler, which is impossible. Proofing incompleteness with computers isn’t relevant, because it wasn’t in question and it doesn’t do away with it’s epistemological implications.

They all debated the question what being mathematical means there whole lives.

I see philosophy as a place to make nonrigorous arguments.

It’s the other way around: math is where you just ignore questions about what makes sense, what knowledge is, what truth is, what a proof is, how scientific consensus is reached, what the scientific method should be, and so on. Instead, you just handwave and assume it will all work out somehow.

Philosophy of mathematics is were these questions are treated rigorously.

Of course, serious mathematicians are often philosophers at the same time.