Logic

Where do I start with logic?
>the Greeks
Is there a chart or something?

Other urls found in this thread:

logicmatters.net/tyl/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Start with the Greeks

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

How to prove it by Daniel Velleman

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.

Homer
Herodotus
Sophocles, Aeschylus, Euripides
Hesiod
Plato
Aristotle

That order.

the organon desu

>Logic BTFO forever, but Anglos keep doing it.

What happened?

Aristotle, he started the whole formal logic thing.

>logic
>BTFO
>forever

What are you talking about?

honestly logic is one of those things you will be served better by reading through the internet encyclopedia of philosophy to get a basic understanding of all surrounding concepts. after that you will probably know where you want to read.

>aristotle after plato

Just start with Plato and then follow with Aristotle. Socrates didn't write anything, all we know about him was given to us by Plato. Before Plato there was no logic, or discussions about morality or existence, just empty rethoric.

Formal logic makes no sense except maybe for training you in clear thinking when constructing networks of inferences. Formal logic artificially hypostatizes terms that only have that meaning to begin with because of their origins in grammar (in Wittgenstein's sense), in a realm where NO meaning is ever stable, but is all phenomenologically complex, intersubjectively constituted, and inherently interpretative.

Logic is always tautological - in order to properly construct a logical argument with "force" to it (the "hardness" of the logical "must," i.e., this "must" be true because it's "logical"), in the sense that logicians mostly want, you have to ossify the grammatical origin of the meanings used to construct the logical statement, in a way that isn't possible. Some guy from a google search, saying it much better than I can:
>We feel as though logic and formal mathematics really produce or contain meaning, but in fact they just rearrange the meaning we put into them. They are nothing but extremely sophisticated tautologies, and once we have seen the path through them, and gotten the clarity they can help us achieve, we are left with no more meaning than we brought to the table to begin with.

The tldr of Quine, Wittgenstein, and all the other critics of logic is: We mostly know what we mean, we seem to navigate the world of meaning OK despite its flux, but ordering it with static regularity will never be possible. And purporting to dissolve some philosophical discourse by showing that it's "logically inconsistent" is meaningless or spurious.

Logic can help us order certain kinds of thinking, but it can also lead us badly astray by assuming this is the be-all end-all of thought. And it can never cut through other discourses in the Peircean sense by showing their incoherence. Coherence and meaning are something deeper, they precede and structure formal language, not the other way around.

totally thought that was a pic of Logic the rapper

thanks ill buy it

Thank you, user.

suck your own dick, attain eudaimonia

Purchase a Fedora, the most logical of headgear.

logicmatters.net/tyl/

bump

>skipping Thucydides
>Hesiod way out of order
>No lyric poetry
>No hellenistic schools
>saying "Aristotle" like anyone who isn't a scholar needs to read his entire oeuvre

Come on, user. At least try.

I'd rather have kakodaimonia