Where do I start with logic?
>the Greeks
Is there a chart or something?
Logic
Jonathan Hughes
Other urls found in this thread:
John Diaz
Start with the Greeks
Lucas Wood
where does one start with the greeks when starting with the greeks
who is the greekest of these greeks
who among them is the greekiest
Austin Edwards
How to prove it by Daniel Velleman
Christian Harris
Get an extremely basic understanding of traditional predicate logic from Wikipedia and Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy.
Here's a cheat sheet:
1. In creating "Aristotelian logic," Aristotle was formalizing "how we as humans can talk about the world." He saw that language was how we describe reality, so he looked for how language does this, assuming that it was synonymous with rational thought.
His system seems half-prescriptive, half-descriptive, because he was looking at ALL ways in which we describe reality by speaking about it - by predicating properties of things. He was trying to figure out what a verb *is*, what an entity *is*, what it means to say "Entity X is blue," what it means to say "All entities of type X are blue," because formal language was still so new that people were confused by simple things like homonyms and slippery concepts like the difference between universal/particular entities, or the difference between a statement being true of an entity, e.g., that Socrates is sitting, and thus "true," at one moment, then wrong the next because Socrates stood up. This is the origin of logic.
2. Mixing logic with ontology is confusing. This is the problem of universals. Aristotle's direct successors knew it was a slippery issue - Porphyry says that he will not discuss the problem of universals, indicating he and everyone else were aware of it.
3. The medievals futz around with the problem of universals but fundamentally their ontology is realist. Logic up to this point has very little to do with what we call formal logic nowadays, in function and conceptualisation - medievals were doing ONTOLOGY *with* logic.
4. Port Royal logic is wiggly. You don't have to know it, but if you're interested, check out Foucault's treatment of it.
5. Transcendental logic is, again, a form of ontology - it is the necessary logic of possible constructions of thought. How MODERN formal analytics employ and appropriate TRANSCENDENTAL logic is very confusing, so leave it off for now.
6. Modern logic significantly comes out of Frege, and (confusingly) some of the neo-Kantians (who were doing transcendental logic), so ignore them and just say Frege. Then you get Russell and Whitehead, then the Vienna Circle. This is the birth and sort of the heyday of logic as you're thinking of it. Logic at this phase is overly ambitious about erecting formal systems of necessary inference in science and thought.
7. If you basically understand #6, you can do modern formal logic. The preceding 1-5 were just for historical background so you know what ISN'T modern formal logic.
8. Logical positivism then moves toward more self-consciously limiting itself to merely formal (therapeutic) rules for clear argument and conceptualisation. Look into ordinary language philosophy.
9. Thinkers like Quine, Wittgenstein, and the entire continental traditional effortlessly destroy the entire epistemology of formal logic. Logic BTFO forever, but Anglos keep doing it.
Aaron Miller
Homer
Herodotus
Sophocles, Aeschylus, Euripides
Hesiod
Plato
Aristotle
That order.
Dominic Flores
the organon desu
Grayson Roberts
>Logic BTFO forever, but Anglos keep doing it.
What happened?
Connor Carter
Aristotle, he started the whole formal logic thing.
Angel Baker
>logic
>BTFO
>forever
What are you talking about?