What is the best textbook to get for an intro to the logic of philosophy?

What is the best textbook to get for an intro to the logic of philosophy?

I was required to take a philosophy course back in college and I chose the easier one, Intro to Ethics over Logic, as I had too much on my work load already double majoring.

I would now like to find a beautiful college level logic of philsophy textbook, one that goes over all the basics of logic and logical fallacies with examples and so on. Any recommendations?

Other urls found in this thread:

amazon.ca/How-Think-About-Weird-Things/dp/007353577X
fecundity.com/logic/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

go to a college website and try to find a professors page. usually they will list the textbooks you need for the class

Everyone has their different recc - there's no consensus

I read Gensler, was pretty good

Good luck with that colleges aren't designed to help you understand philosophy. Why not just read some philosophers that interest you and make your own conclusions?

No one likes analytics here and they probably never even took an upper level logic course. I can't remember what I had to read fro formal logic but it wasn't too great. For the basics - fallacies and stuff - this is actually great: amazon.ca/How-Think-About-Weird-Things/dp/007353577X

>colleges aren't designed to help you understand philosophy

They are designed to put you into work and also to indoctrinate you. I'm sorry but learning philosophy in college and thinking you understand philosophy is just pathetic. You can't be spoonfed these things.

OP I strongly suggest you gather some philosophies that interest you, seek out the authors, and read their books and develop your own reasoning. College textbooks are just going to try and give you a carefully pre planned answer to everything. That isn't how you learn anything nor is it how you develop yourself mentally.

I can't help but feel like Veeky Forums's "figure it out yourself" attitude towards studying philosophy is a continental bias.

>Philosophy is like, about your experience bro

It's fine to read secondary sources and whatnot. You're going to understand what the hell is going on 1000x faster, as well as understand things you're just going to never see. You don't just have someone bash their head on Plato or Kant or whatever by themself. People have been studying these texts for ages and debating about what they mean, and you expect some random 120 IQ schmup to just "figure it out"? This is not how intellectual activity does or should take place. This is not how philosophy fucking works.

>Philosophy is like, about your experience bro
In many ways it is. The underlying point is you should go into any philosophy with a clear head without the bias that a college is going to put into your head. The reality is college is not about higher learning in the romantic sense, it is mostly an industry now with a set agenda so wasting your time reading their pre-package set of opinions is just going to ultimately detract from your understanding.

The GREATEST thing you could do is read the philosophy and do some research on critiques by other philosophers and read those if you really must. Or find people like yourself and discuss them. That's really the greatest way to get an understanding of a philosophy.

Pretty sure Kant, Fichte, Hegel, and Schelling were all consecutive Chairs of Philosophy at Berlin University. Turns out philosophers end up in university philosophy departments. Who woulda thunk it.

Different era of universities. Look at the modern types that come out of now. Good luck trying to justify the concept that university life then vs now is identical.

Have you ever taken a university philosophy class? You study works of philosophy with a professor who is familiar with the work, then you write papers in response. Where does this indoctrination come from? There's plenty of papers I did well on that went against the teachers interpretation. It's not God's Not Dead.

You are seriously exaggerating and act like academics have no control over their own activity.

>with a professor
red flag
>then you write papers in response
red flag

>Where does this indoctrination come from?

add the red flags

>I did well on that went against the teachers interpretation

That's because you're paying them.

>imply you do well in university by paying
Damn, so me ending up on the deans list had nothing to do with me sitting up all night reading philosophy? I guess I payed for the expensive courses. Really activates the ol' almonds.

>sitting up all night reading philosophy
You're only doing that for a grade. What a self-defeating purpose to read philosophy.

Yet I've graduated and I'm still doing the same thing. Hmmm... It's only like I chose a major that already interested me and stimulated that interest hmm... yes... Man you're a good psychologist, I'm getting some real catharsis here. Do you charge for sessions or is this pro bono?

>the logic of philosophy
I think you're in for a bad time if you haven't realised it's just autistic maths. But here's my textbook:
fecundity.com/logic/

I'm showing you that you live on an escalator. Some people find it easier to stay within the confines of a predetermined system.

My point was to say that it isn't always the best course of options. You have the typical smartass attitude of most college graduates. My hopes were to save OP from turning into one of you.

>you live on an escalator
I was wrong, you, quite obviously, are a philosophical genius of the highest caliber. My years of study were wasted.

The basics of logic are still the basics of logic. There's no liberal or conservative slant to what is a strawman argument or what is a non sequitur.

Just because there is a liberal slant to many Universities doesn't mean every course is subject to it. Great examples are math and engineering, basic logic, economics, which tends to have a conservative slant even at liberal universities and poli sci can be a bit of a coin flip. I've seen it go both ways surprisingly at universities you wouldn't expect it. But it tends to attract more conservative professors while international relations tends to attract more liberals.

>autistic maths
isn't mathematics just another part of formal logic?

Geometry has quite a bit of if/ then arguments in it.... are you implying geometry isn't a real science or is autistic?

Not him I just wanted to reply to the last post in this reply chain

Chicken or egg...

Geometry is what Kant uses to find the basis for a priori knowledge. So, yes, it's autistic.

Isn't Geometry a major fabric in our entire understanding of our universe and psychics and shit.

correct
has sour grapes because he didnt go to college, or flunked out of college, or failed a phil class, or got a bad mark on a phil paper one time because he tried to present sone harebrained """"""original"""""" interpretation

Not the person you replied to but...

Yes, but doesn't that mean you're essentially learning the canonical "interpretation", which may be largely fictional projection, and is often very rigid, and unyielding to dissent? I wouldn't vest much trust in academia or any """"intellectual"""" on any humanties matter considering on the whole it's just a big ideologue herding shitfest. With little solid original thought, and no intellectual integrity. I think you should use such interpretations as the actual texts are either devoid of real depth that the interpretations posit (so basically you're understanding accumulated depth projected onto a shallow work) or they're too far removed in mannerisms, language, and culture to be as comprehensively understood standalone...but you should be highly critical of all of it, and think things over for yourself.

>understanding the universe
oh-ho! Time for you to google solipsism my boy! Time to google skept-wait for it-ism

>why are lions always mad
Why are they always mad?

Is that some form of sexual dysfunction. Are you a solipist or a sufferer of solipism?

Is solipism a form of biocentrism?