Veeky Forums, does anyone have a source to get a good grasp about philosophy of logic?

Not the one who responded to you earlier, but Quine's ideas and posterior philosophies of language such as pragmatism worked towards separating themselves and "correcting"the though of logic positivism. So a good start would be to understand what Quine, Fregue and company are against.

Thanks for that, but I would still like a book that covers the history of logic and goes into what it is currently studying; I brought up Quine's book because that's what I thought it was

Not who you're responding to, but why would you want that? Just read the primary sources as they are infinitely more enjoyable and will provide you with a complete understanding of the development of philosophical logic through the history of analytic philosophy

I plan on reading those, but like I said in my OP, I would like to grasp just what is going on in this field. It was just a very big surprise that something like Defensible Reasoning was in logic so now I want to see what else there is.

The only thing that I can recommed without going into Ayer's logic positivism or The philosophy of the XX century is a book in spanish called "La Búsqueda del Significado" by Luis Valdés Villanueva. Sorry I can't be more useful.

Anyone have any good recommendations on the epistemology of logic?

I tend to think Wittgenstein and Heidegger blew logic the fuck out. I'm curious if more recent stuff (neo-transcendental maybe, some kind of return to Frege?) has validated it.

Heidegger didn't really do anything to logic.

His work on logic is pretty good actually, but I mostly mean reducing logic to the status of a regional ontology, or of showing how it's interwoven with various ontologies rather than being a single meta-epistemology.

Use your brain.

Any recs for history of logic books?

I'm curious as well.

Pick up an intro level logic textbook at a local college. I've been working my way through one and it baby steps you through the very basic conventions.

I've been doing that as well and it's great, it's just it doesn't help me understand the scope of logic, like where linguistics, phil. langauge, or phil. math come in.

It is nice to have a guidebook to give you the tools, but sometimes you just need a map to know where people have been and where you need to go.

exactly!

bump.

Tfw no logician GF.

>tfw you thought you understood the tractatus pretty well but then you go to look up a clarification of what wittgenstein means by "object" and find that you've been misinterpreting logical atomism at a fundamental level this whole time

hold me Veeky Forums

elaborate pls

It's really hard for me (and many scholars of the tractatus it seems) to intuitively understand what Wittgenstein meant by "elementary propositions." Every proposition breaks down to elementary props, sure, but I'm just not sure how a statement like "The cat is on the mat" can be broken down further than a logical generalization like E(x): Cx · Mx. This comes down to a matter of what W means by "objects" given that he defines elementary props as "combinations of objects" and it's clear that he doesn't mean any sort of 1:1 correspondence between nameable "things" and the logical objects treated by the TLP. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "It turns out that even apparently simple singular terms such as ‘Obama,’ ‘London,’ etc., will not be counted as “names” by the strict standards of the Tractatus since they will disappear on further analysis," but they don't elaborate on this exact point with any examples that would help me to visualize how the type of analysis proposed by W would even proceed. On one hand, you could replace "Obama" by empirical statements like "44th president of the USA who was born in Hawaii to parents..." but this type of thinking seems to go outside the type of strictly logical thought W seemed to have in mind.

I'm trying to carefully reread the Stanford article on "Wittgenstein's logical atomism," which seems pretty comprehensive, but it seems like it includes many logical concepts i've never heard of and I'm worrying that my base-level understanding of formal logic has been mistaken. If anyone has any knowledge in this area i'd be hugely grateful

ty

I needed this.

y not find an analytic philosophy mentor

because it's a delusional fantasy that keeps you going through your sad and false existence?

I need mentors, any suggestions?

bump

look at your local university

van dalen's "introduction to logic" + s.c. kleene's "mathematical logic"

start with these 2. make sure to thoroughly understand the classical logic before moving on to predicate logic. also, make sure to *practice* deduction. you won't get far if you attempt to approach logic only from a theoretical point of view. having the mechanical skill is necessary for understanding theorems.

Yeah lel logic goes so deep and stretchees so wide. You could study the discipline your whole life and still only cover like 10% of the shit thats been published up to now (and presumably much more would be published before you die). It basically divides into sub-areas in the respective fields of philosophy, linguistics, computer science, and mathematics.

You've got stuff like modal logics, temporal logic, etc. (philosophy); montague grammar, categorial grammar, and generative semantics (which one might not be completely inclined to call a logic, but its pretty similar) (linguistics); formal language theory, automata theory, lambda calculus, theory of recursive functions, etc. (computer science), and classical predicate calculus, model theory, proof theory, set theory, category theory, topos theory (mathematics)

All of which are either explicitly logical formalism, or are otherwise extremely relevant to logic and/or should be viewed as extensions of the classical discipline of logic. And trust me this is only the beginning.

L. T. F. Gamut LOGIC, LANGUAGE, AND MEANING VOLUME I; Introduction to Logic, and
L. T. F. Gamut LOGIC, LANGUAGE, AND MEANING VOLUME II; Intensional Logic and Logical Grammar.
I just searched the titles and got pdfs.
I also like flicking through Euclid's Elements.

Anywhere else? My university professors haven't been that helpful so far.

For some people an interest in logic just seems to come naturally, and I think their natural talent tends to elide little things about it. If you're like me, innately bad at and uninterested in logic, you're left wondering if you're the only one to whom those things appear odd.

I've started learning about logic only recently, after being way more into continental philosophy. My main interest is in the epistemological status of logic. One of the things that always drove me insane in trying to understand it is that logicians and analytic philosophers tend to take logic so much for granted that they just assume it's synonymous with "philosophy" in any meaningful sense. But that really isn't the case.

The best way to understand it (openly admitting my bias) is historically, understanding what contexts gave rise to it and how and why people came to feel that it was a sovereign source of sure knowledge. The problem is that analytics also fucking hate historical approaches to philosophy. Aside from a few exceptions, and even they are minor, analytic philosophy has been extremely ahistorical. Even postpositvist analytics still wouldn't like what I'm saying here. But trust me, if you're not natively inclined to logical and mathematical thinking, and if one of your first instincts about mathematical reasoning is to question is epistemological and ontological status, you are really going to want to take an historical approach, and carefully suspend your judgement about whether logic really is the ideal form of philosophical discourse.

I would recommend you read histories of logic itself, like Kneale, but also auxiliary books like _Before Logic_ and general historical treatments of the genesis and epistemological-ontological status of Aristotelian, medieval, and pre-Fregean logic. Hair-splitting aside, Frege (or at least the movement Frege) represents is a decisive break in logic's self-conception. The birth of logic in the sense of analytic philosophy of out certain neo-Kantian and positivistic strains in the late 19th century is extremely different from what Kant meant by logic.

Almost no practitioner will tell you exactly how, though. Again, if you're continentally inclined, your first questions will be things like 'what did Kant mean by logic, and why? How did Frege formulate his conceptions? How does modern logic rest on Frege and Russell? What are the underlying epistemological and ontological assumptions about the access of logic to 'reality' in philosophers like Russell?" And so on. No one will answer this shit. They'll say: Kant was wrong and/or dumb, Frege was good, but now we've really figured it out, so shut the fuck up and get cracking on this or that 2000s logic textbook.

If things like defeasible reasoning through you I would really advise you to look into the stuff I recommended. Check out Heidegger's critique of logic as logos vs. aletheia, and Wittgenstein's critique of logicism in "the hardness of the logical must."

thanks.

...

this.

Didn't he have some thing about tautologies being the building blocks.
And from what I remember it's almost identical to learning about pointers in computers, ie. you actually can't explain them properly you just need to get it and then you'll understand.

>"44th president of the USA who was born in Hawaii to parents..."
there is nothing empirical about this, do not be such a rationalist

>general historical treatments of the genesis and epistemological-ontological status of Aristotelian, medieval, and pre-Fregean logic.
what are some examples?

>Obama
>Born in Hawaii
Nice joke.