Philosophy is Role Play

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;112065 wrote:

I'm only starting to learn logic myself. I'd say if you want someone to reference you a logic textbook, ask Emil, VideCorSpoon, or kennethamy - these three probably know more about logic than most people on the forum. What I am doing is starting with a holistic understanding of what is logic, and then delving into basic formal logic. From there, I'm not sure where to go. Heck, I may not even be interested in all the formalizations and go back to being a poetic twit. We'll see.

So how have you started?

Emil, VideCorSpoon, kennethamy - Can you suggest a logic textbook for me to start?

Also, kennethamy, you once asked me if Ortega had ever studied logic. I also mentioned in another post that what I appreciated most about his writings was that they were very easy to understand. There was one work, however, that I had difficulty with. Not because I couldn't read it but because I didn't have the background in philosophy to understand or appreciate it.

It's a work of what we would call metalogic, subjecting the practice of logic ro an analysis and investigation.

The title is The Idea of Principle in Leibnitz and the Evolution of Deductive Theory. I have transcribed the Table of Contents so that you can get an idea of the range of topics included:

1. The Idea of Principle in Leibnitz
2. What a Principle Is
3. Thinking and Being, or The Heavenly Twins
4. Three Positions of Philosophy with Respect to Science
5. The Reign of Physics Begins about 1750
6. Back Over the Road
7. Algebra as a "Way of Thinking"
8. Analytical Geometry
9. Concept as a "Term"
10. Truth and Logicality
11. The Concept in Pre-Cartesian Deductive Theory
12. Proof in the Deductive Theory According to Aristotle
13. Logical Structure in the Science of Euclid
14. Definitions in Euclid
15. "Evidence" in Euclid's Axioms
16. Aristotle and the "Transcendental Deduction" of Principles
17. The "Implicit Axioms" in Euclid--Common Axioms and "Proper" Axioms
18. Sensualism in the Aristotelian "Way of Thinking"
19. Essay on What Happened to Aristotle with Principles
20. Parenthetical Note on Scholasticisms
21. New Revision of the Itinerary
22. Incommunicability of the Genera
23. Modernity and Primitivism in Aristotle
24. The "New Way of Thinking" and Aristotelian Demagoguery
25. The Cataleptic Imagination of the Stoics
26. Ideoma--Draoma
27. Doubt, the Beginning of Philosophy
28. The Historical Origin of Philosophy
29. The Level of Our Roots
30. Belief and Truth
31. The Dramatic Side of Philosophy
32. The Jovial Side of Philosophy
33. The Cartesian "Way of Thinking"
Appendix 1. Concerning Optimism in Leibnitz
Appendix 2: Renaissance, Humanism, and Counter Reformation

If anyone has read this I would appreciate feedback on it.

"Clarity is the courtesy of the philosopher" - Ortega y Gasset

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;112084 wrote:

Reconstructo believes man leans on objectivity in much the same way man leans on God, for comfort. He believes that man's believing in a logical proof is the same sort of blind belief one sees in a man depending on God. And, when one speaks of logical proofs as recognizing truths, he takes this to be arrogant, and a "defense of objectivity!" being made. (Reconstructo, please correct me if I'm wrong)

I think, however, it's easier to lean on subjectivity. It's easier to say there is no truth, rather than admitting you have the capacity to be wrong. And, if anything, it is the subjectivist, not the objectivist, which exalts objectivity to such a high status!

Reconstructo's post really ought to be read together with the post called, "I'm starting to have a real problem with going to school" I have just commented on it.

It has a great deal in common with it. It derives from the same culture, and the same set of assumptions.

@Reconstructo,

longknowledge wrote:

So how have you started?

In the logic sub-forum, there are several stickied threads written by VideCorSpoon. Here, VideCorSpoon details the basics of propositonal logic. It's a good place to start, or at least I think it was for me. He walks you through step-by-step, and offers some good explanations that help newbies.

Additionally, I have taken your encyclopedia route - there really is some great stuff on there. The thing is, it's tough to grasp some of the concepts unless you have someone guiding you (or, unless you are a genius!). I am not a genius, so I resort to help from peers and those on this forum.

Lastly, I have asked for logic textbook recommendations from people here, in addition to peers which have studied logic. I'm probably going to pick one up during this holiday season and really start delving into the meat!

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;112087 wrote:

In the logic sub-forum, there are several stickied threads written by VideCorSpoon. Here, VideCorSpoon details the basics of propositonal logic. It's a good place to start, or at least I think it was for me. He walks you through step-by-step, and offers some good explanations that help newbies.

Additionally, I have taken your encyclopedia route - there really is some great stuff on there. The thing is, it's tough to grasp some of the concepts unless you have someone guiding you (or, unless you are a genius!). I am not a genius, so I resort to help from peers and those on this forum.

Lastly, I have asked for logic textbook recommendations from people here, in addition to peers which have studied logic. I'm probably going to pick one up during this holiday season and really start delving into the meat!

I used to use I.M. Copi's "Introduction to Logic", but there are many other perfectly good texts around I am not familiar with. And also on the web. Google it, or better still, Bing it. I think Bing is a better search-engine for academic purposes.

---------- Post added 12-17-2009 at 11:48 AM ----------

Informal Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Is worth reading.

@Reconstructo,

I dropped out of school in the third grade, ran away to learn ninjitsu from deaf mutes. Only last year did I begin this adventure called reading. Still, so much of my childhood had been stolen from me. I wasn't ready to grow up. I'm still not. Peter Pan is more than just a peanut butter, it's the image in the one cracked mirror we have here at the half-way house. A kid named Marty told me that you only had to read the index of a book to sound like you had read the whole darn thing. So far it's worked. I skip to the back, and if there's no index I burn the book (competition is fierce.)

We all know that humans cannot learn on their own. Nothing is real without a stamp from the proper authorities. Remember that kids. Authority comes from without, never within. Wisdom is a lie. The tribe knows best. Learn obedience from the obedient. Learn humility from the slave. In every case, believe what you are told. If you have any doubts, this is a stubborn spirit that the fathers will soon whip out of the you. Truth is the correspondence of your opinion with the opinion of the High Priest. Laughter and irony are the signs of decadence. Farts are indication of low I.Q. Tautologies are perfectly true. Therefore let us worship.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo wrote:

We all know that humans cannot learn on their own. Nothing is real without a stamp from the proper authorities. Remember that kids. Authority comes from without, never within. Wisdom is a lie. The tribe knows best. Learn obedience from the obedient. Learn humility from the slave. In every case, believe what you are told. If you have any doubts, this is a stubborn spirit that the fathers will soon whip out of the you. Truth is the correspondence of your opinion with the opinion of the High Priest. Laughter and irony are the signs of decadence. Farts are indication of an low I.Q. Tautologies are perfectly true. Therefore let us worship.

Do you believe someone here follows this line of thinking? It sounds like you're mocking somebody, but I don't know who.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;112226 wrote:

Do you believe someone here follows this line of thinking? It sounds like you're mocking somebody, but I don't know who.

I'm not mocking you in the least. I realize now that tautology line ties in with another post, but it's only a coincidence. It's a general parody of pedantry, but then I did have someone in mind. I've got a little troll on my back. I was sort of playing up the scapegoat of youth and mocking the expected servility.
I hope to soon evolve beyond reacting to my troll at all.

I've got respect for you, Zeth. I enjoy the right kind of disagreement. Otherwise, there's no action, nothing to learn.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;111633 wrote:

It is the surrender to the non-rational.

I don't see it as a surrender so much as a discovery, and even a self-discovery. It takes a rational person to see the irrational roots of rationality.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;113415 wrote:

I don't see it as a surrender so much as a discovery, and even a self-discovery. It takes a rational person to see the irrational roots of rationality.

Very paradoxical. Very profound. But what does it mean?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;113415 wrote:

I don't see it as a surrender so much as a discovery, and even a self-discovery. It takes a rational person to see the irrational roots of rationality.

See Reason and Rationality in Plato, by Ortega.

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;113434 wrote:

See Reason and Rationality in Plato, by Ortega.

I liked that. Good stuff. Exactly why I started a thread on those terms.

As far as the role play: they are white cowboy hats.

Cops and robbers. Cleaners versus makers. Both use words to defend or question certain other words. Their hats are different colors. Their guns are the same model (on this forum): English.

@Reconstructo,

It continues to feel like role-play, my brothers and sisters. All the forum is a stage, and all the posts and threads are merely players.

Philosophy Forum

Philosophy is Role Play

Quick Links

My Account

able2know