/lit/ - Literature

>>19815138
I did. It's boring. All you need to know is how to formulate sound arguments and detect fallacies. The whole symbolic logic autism is just pointless.

>>19815147
>moron
You have to know how to prove something is a "fallacy". You can't do that by just stating it's a fallacy particularly in more complex arguments. This really just speaks to your own ability.

>>19815138
Proof books are really good but I'm still trying to finish my own logic language

Logic is useful, reading through Boole and Frege for a while is useful if you are interested in mathematical philosophy, but the failure of Russell and Whitehead's Principia and the release of the Tractatus should have been the death knell for those who thought logic could ever be an ideal language.

Its survival as at least a tool was a failed experiment too. Learning logic is cumbersome and distracts students from actually learning how to think. It's like having a requirement that all your philosophy students be chess players. Meaningless waste of time. Chess only makes you better at chess, logic only makes you better at logic.

>>19815138
It's boring.
Rhetoric is more entertaining and takes me farther

>>19815185
>You have to know how to prove something is a "fallacy". You can't do that by just stating it's a fallacy particularly in more complex arguments.
Representing your opponent's argument in symbolic logic and drawing out a truth table to test validity is only interesting to other autists like yourself. Nobody is impressed by it. Philosophers have been quite happy to write and argue in natural language for thousands of years.
>This really just speaks to your own ability.
I got a first in my logic class mate.

>>19815138
That's a really bad book tho. There's no point to it. It doesn't cover naive set theory at least nor completeness. It doesn't seem to show any proof theory. Also parts 1 and 2 look masturbatory

>>19815213
Yeah and philosophers have gotten destroyed by it. You obv don't code.

>I got a first in my logic class mate.
>fallacies
You took some jerk-off human reasoning. Show completeness of system phi in fol.

>>19815231
>You obv don't code.
Do you think you're on reddit, faggot?

>>19815231
It's amazing how you posted an argument which was perfectly comprehensible in natural language but felt the need to represent it in symbolic logic too. That just proves my point. Anyway, that Godel quote is very based and I agree with him.

i tried reading a book on formal logic, don't remember which but it was quite boring honestly.
is there an interesting, minimally well written and preferably concise book on formal logic? Also, a question: when it comes to mathematics and logic, formal logic is the same thing for both or are there diferences?
thanks

but im study mathematical logic in grad school anon

>>19815243
Then how can you say it has no point. You use a computer to type this stuff. Computers come from logic. With natural language you're stuck in biases of your language and have to make intuition leaps.

Can you prove a set is into another and that that implies an asymmetric relationship? Can you prove an equivalency "fallacy"? Can you actually show some thinking is a fallacy or show where some thinking ought to go to take the general case of your point?

>>19815268
>With natural language you're stuck in biases of your language and have to make intuition leaps.
You still have to use natural language and "intuition leaps" in symbolic logic because you need to define your variables anyway. Otherwise the argument proves nothing.

>>19815252
You know you can't just use informal languages for a computer or it breaks right? Are you willing to give up all computers for this? Also the point of putting it into proofs is you can proof check to make sure it's valid which is something you can't do.

>>19815202
and why exactly logic is not an endeavour worth pursuing in itself? but thinking its a failed experiment is just plain retardation

>>19815268
>With natural language you're stuck in biases of your language and have to make intuition leaps.
You need to read the Philosophical Investigations. Any formal language like symbolic logic is just an artificial natural language with all the same problems as real natural language. Careful speaking can involve simplifying abstractions but a purely formal system of abstractions does not and has not solved anything, it has only created a small stupid religion for obsessing over technical details like autistic kids playing with legos.

>>19815138
I will at some point after learning basic mathematics and geometry

>>19815268
>With natural language you're stuck in biases of your language and have to make intuition leaps.
You need to read the Philosophical Investigations, and Poincare. Any formal language like symbolic logic is just an artificial natural language with all the same problems as real natural language. Careful speaking can involve simplifying abstractions but a purely formal system of abstractions does not and has not solved anything, it has only created a small stupid religion for obsessing over technical details like autistic kids playing with legos.

>Can you prove a set
Perfect example. Set theory is a nonsensical religious system.

>>19815279
Exactly.

>>19815281
Logic is, symbolic logic isn't except for specific technical reasons and then it melds into coding.

>>19815202
>reading through Boole and Frege for a while is useful if you are interested in mathematical philosophy

what? reading that is not usefull at all. there are reasons to read them, mostly because of culture/history/they are good reads but not quite useful if you want to study mathematical philosophy

>>19815259
It's the same thing for both but you have different logic languages. So for "philosopher's" logic you have modal logic. With computer science you have type theory which is more prevalent. For mathematical logic you have classical logic, set theory etc. There's a lot of overlap like proof theory.
Also no there's no easy way to go through logic but I recommend math proofs first.

>>19815213
>thinking the only method logic has for testing validity is a truth table

are u ok anon

>I got a first in my logic class mate.

ah yes an undergraduate class on logic for philosophers you must now tons

>>19815280
I'm not arguing against the value of symbolic logic for computer programming; I'm arguing against its value in philosophy and philosophical argumentation.

Or should I say
>"there exists an x such that if x is me then x is not arguing against the value of symbolic logic for computer programming."

>>19815279
No you need to set an axiom. An intuition leap is when you assume a variable and negate it (such as atheism being true without needing theism to be true (check russell's paradox)).

>>19815213
>a truth table
Lmao

>>19815291
I mean that it's useful to know the origins and background of that philosophy to decide whether you're interested in it in the first place. If you just want to jump right into a bachelor's degree in technical applications of logic or maths, that's okay but you shouldn't really call yourself a philosopher then.

If you're interested in logic you should first learn what it is in general (a long tradition of thinking about rules for proper thinking, going back to Aristotle and also importantly featuring Leibniz), then read some of its modern founding figures like Frege and Boole, learn a little about the rise of formal logic around people like Peano and Russell and Couturat, then study a modern symbolic logic more in depth if you end up thinking that it's valuable.

Unless you need some specific formal logic for your degree in CS or maths, then obviously you should learn what tools are necessary for your degree, same with learning Python or w/e because your degree says you have to.

>>19815304
Proof that studying "Logic" doesn't teach logical thinking. Can't follow a thread of argument, just wants to reply rhetorically/polemically.

>>19815284
>purely formal system of abstractions does not and has not solved anything
please google formal verification and its applications

>>19815290
Are you suggesting there are just as much inconsistencies in English, or any other natlang, than a formal language. I'll presume so and say that the word "or" and "and" have overlap where in logic they don't. If you confuse those then you don't get any electronics. You go back a few centuries which is fine but you'd lose sovereignty except at the behest of a logic-using state.

>>19815290
>symbolic logic melds into coding
i mean, symbolic logic can be applied to coding. does not mean that is the only avenue it leads onto

>>19815306
So you would throw out all analytic philosophy?

>>19815341
No, the fact that symbolic logic is really only useful for applications like coding is an empirical one that we now know, but you're right that it wasn't derivable from the idea of symbolic logic.

>>19815340
Logic is great for electronics, not great for humans. Humans do philosophy, electronics don't. Humans also decide what constitutes a functioning, good, or useful electronic device.

>You go back a few centuries which is fine but you'd lose sovereignty except at the behest of a logic-using state.
This is a nebulous claim. Would it benefit from being expressed in logic? No, it would benefit from being developed and questioned in organic dialogue.

>>19815366
Yeah and you would be chasing your tail forever. Formal languages are quicker to check for validity and understanding. Informal languages have developed confusion. Aristotle developed his logic to show causation. You would be throwing out too much by throwing out logic and if you just mean symbolic logic then you would be throwing out conciseness and readability.

Look at how many words there are
>>19815231
And you can easily show any issue in it.

>>19815366
>>19815388
I'll go a bit further about the symbolic language. I've had atheists try to debunk it on the natlang side and they keep misinterpreting it.

>>19815346
No. I might even use symbolic logic to test validity if I encountered a really confusing and abstruse argument. But I don't believe it is anything more than a seldom-needed tool of clarification. Natural language is quite capable of conveying philosophical arguments with clarity.

>>19815388
>Formal languages are quicker to check for validity and understanding.
For whom? The autistic rhesus monkeys in this thread who have already showed themselves to be semi-retarded even for rhesus monkeys? It's a dead field, it's a subset of coding now. It's like saying "coding is the most efficient conlang, in the future we'll all speak code, I'm jacked in to the cybermatrix right now." Nobody cares.

I was trolling a little hard in this post >>19815397 I apologize to >>19815388 I just wanted to call logicfags monkeys

>>19815388
Bro, you still need to define your variables when you represent an argument in symbolic logic. And your variables are going to be defined in natural language. When you read an argument all you're going to simply replace the variables with the natural language definitions. All you're doing is making it more abstract.

why would I invest time in logic when I could instead be raping and murdering people???

>>19815396
No it isn't. Look at the wiktionary for atheism. It defines a-theism as "a belief of there being no God". Theism is the assertion there is God, not the belief but misunderstanding the negation does that. Also what if you don't accept binary but multi-valued logic? You need to prove it and show immediate applications. You can't do that w natlang.

>>19815397
Lmao, yeah coding could seem superfluous. For linguistics you definitely need it. They use a formal language for pronunciation too etc.

>>19815419
>not the belief but misunderstanding the negation does that.
Is this seriously your argument? I think you might have autism. Belief and assertion are virtually synonymous in this context and if you have an important distinction to make between them you could do it in natural language.

>>19815407
In contemporary logic it's not so much what it is but what it's truth value is and in how many valences.
In set theory it's what sets it's a part of etc. These are important in every day conversation.
Based on computability, the more concepts you need to import the more complexity and ability for error there is also it depends what type of thing you're importing (variables, adjectives etc) and that can be worse. In any sense it's necessary in philosophy as of ovrr a century ago and good insights currently are derived from logic.

logic lacks warmth and I need a man talking to me in language like mommy and daddy talk to me, need my cock held by what I'm reading, will only read natural language because it is warm and smooth like mom's milk from breast

>>19815447
So this is where knowing formal logic helps. See atheists don't assume an equivalency (which I can prove but you can't) and say they are different. I regularly do have to draw upon formal logic to show belief is equivalent w assertion (and I'll use sep as well) and show what a negation is and does so you've made my point for me.

>>19815464
Your debates must be very boring if you unironically spend a good portion of your time proving with formal logic that "belief" is equivalent to "assertion". That's a side issue of a side issue of a side issue in the whole theism-atheism debate.

>>19815482
>In any sense it's a position that there isn't God. Even if you qualify it w maybe or "it's a belief there is no God", it's completely unsubstantiated. You can't assert theism exists just as a figment of your imagination and then, right after, say theism doesn't exist. Atheism is always a contradiction because it needs theism to exist to have a position against it but then it says theism can't exist. It's impossible to prove a universal negative.
No it's pretty interesting. Anyone that has an issue w these you just prove it. Formal languages help in pronunciation and expressing things systematically (read unambiguously and efficiently) in any field. Formal languages are necessary once you enter even science and that's nowhere near the full application of formal languages.

>>19815482
>>19815499
Imagine trying to approximate "sj" sound in swedish as best as you in many paragraphs even after hearing it when ɧ does the job. Formal languages have extreme efficiency the more universally it's applied. This is proven in formal logic as well (lol).

Logic bros, how do i get started? m currently reading thishttps://www.logicmatters.net/ifl/ but where do i go from there, also how do you convert natural language arguments and check their "truthness" m kinda still retarded. (i appreciate any help or guidance)

>>19815540
https://www.logicmatters.net/tyl/

As far as I'm aware there's still a translation bit to it. You have to be able to parse out ambiguities but it doesn't take too long to figure out. Some languages have distinctions which are nowhere in natural language and have to be written out terribly in them (like fuzzy logic). You have to know which language you think is best at preserving existence or truth.

>>19815540
Do Byrne's Euclid

It's so embarrassing everytime logic is brought up here. It really exposes just how pseudointellectual /lit/ is.

>>19815202
Pseud alert!

Being stupid and living in a fantasy world is more fun

>>19815396
>Natural language is quite capable of conveying philosophical arguments with clarity.
Up to a certain, and very limited, point, due to ambiguity of "natural" meaning, leading to equivocation. This is why physics (and pretty much every rigorous area of study) has abandoned natural language in place of formal languages. Creating a formal language for whatever you are trying to model is much more effective and clear.

>>19815661
Philosophy isn't physics or maths bro. It doesn't rely on the principles of geometry and algebra. It is above all these disciplines because it investigates that which they simply take for granted.

>>19815202
>Logic is useful, reading through Boole and Frege for a while is useful if you are interested in mathematical philosophy, but the failure of Russell and Whitehead's Principia and the release of the Tractatus should have been the death knell for those who thought logic could ever be an ideal language.
First of all, the principia only "fails" in the context of being incomplete, which isn't actually that big of a deal. This is not a "death knell" to logic at all. And I have no idea why you would think the tractatus would constitute a death knell to logic at all.

>>19815202
>Learning logic is cumbersome and distracts students from actually learning how to think. It's like having a requirement that all your philosophy students be chess players. Meaningless waste of time. Chess only makes you better at chess, logic only makes you better at logic.
Logic is a definition of truth, and so is a necessity to master if you ever want to be able to think good. You are just a pseud trying to get out of working.

>>19815366
symbolic logic has also been used to further many areas of mathematics

>>19815672
So why would it use a less formal language to do so?

>>19815138
I get bitches

>>19815672
I agree. Since philosophy works on an even higher level of clarity and rigor, formal languages and careful argumentation are even more of a necessity.

>>19815677
The logicist program was a failure. Set theory is a joke.

>>19815686
Stick to arguing on reddit about how the future economy will be built by elite Asian programmers such as yourself.

>>19815677
It's only incompleteness of a particular epistemological framework

>>19815672
yet you take for granted natural language baka

>>19815231
>

>>19815677
>>19815714

you live in your mom's basement

>>19815672
>philosophy does not take for granted nothing so then we use a less rigurous language to study it

what

>>19815712
>The logicist program was a failure. Set theory is a joke.
Why?
>Stick to arguing on reddit about how the future economy will be built by elite Asian programmers such as yourself.
Mathematics major and white, but close enough.

>>19815716
It's more like
>positive property exists to some degree (helping a lady walk the street so charity)
>God is defined as all positive traits maximally in one being
>charity exists to higher degrees including maximal therefore God is entailed by charity existing

>inb4 evil exists
It does not.

>>19815712
the logicist program was indeed a failure, it would be impossible to find any logician which such adheres to the program nowadays. that does not mean logic is dead lol

>>19815716
>b is an existing square circle
>b exists
>therefore an existing square circle exists

>>19815735
No you just said what b was. You made them equivalent then separated them then made them equivalent again.

>>19815202
t. low ELO rating

>>19815719
>>19815714
Wait, did continental philosophers and cultural studies academics just lie about a field they oppose? Who would have ever thought?

>>19815202
This is true to an extent. A philosophy professor of mine, very knowledgeable of the history of philosophy, not denigrating logic of course, said at a certain point you have to go beyond it and that it won't fulfill everything of concern

Common sense of course. Nevertheless, logic is helpful to have in your back pocket. I've read Aristotle's logical works begore I took my course on symbolic logic and I think it's for the better

>>19815697
>>19815710
>>19815715
>>19815724
I can't believe you're this dumb. The ONLY reason physics and mathematics use formal languages is for convenience and universality. It's much easier to say 2+2 than it is to say "two added to two". It is much easier to say √4 than it is to say "that number which, when it is multiplied by itself, equals four". It's not that natural language is inadequate to express mathematical concepts; it's that mathematical language allows us to express these concepts in a universal shorthand. Besides, mathematics does utilise natural language all the time in proofs, because then it is actually more convenient than formalising everything.

But this does not apply to philosophy. Philosophy is not confined in its speculations like mathematics is. It is much more convenient for philosophers to write in natural language. If I'm reading Hume I can understand him perfectly well, and much easier in fact, than if he presented his arguments entirely in symbolic logic. Not least because of the fact that NATURAL LANGUAGE IS UNAVOIDABLE IN PHILOSOPHY. Yes, Hume could present his arguments in formal logic, but then he would have to define all his variables in natural language anyway. It would be no use for him to present arguments without defining his terms in natural language; those arguments would prove nothing.

Please just stop being morons.

>>19815833
*before

>>19815835
>The ONLY reason physics and mathematics use formal languages is for convenience and universality.
Gee anon sure sounds like unambiguity and conciseness to me. The more universal the application the more you need formality or it'll become more convoluted. Prop logic is covered in pred logic so there's an order even in formal languages.

>>19815833
I agree w this but I would call particular logic languages a sub epistemology of rationalism. It's still less important than ontology or metaphysics but it is important.

>>19815880
Like I just said, you can try translate Hume into formal logic if you want, but you're still going to be using natural language to define your terms. It's inescapable. And nobody is going to think Hume is more unambiguous and concise because of it. I don't know how many times I have to keep making the same point, but this is my last attempt.

I did study it in my final year of high school
I borrowed a book on logic and studied it because I thought it was necessary, now I couldn't care less about logic

>>19815138
>people unironically think fallacies are a relevant part of logic
>this pseud who just learnt about babby's first Gödel, bringing up the few names he knows to create the appearance of understanding >>19815202

Incredible thread. imagine thinking "STEM vs Humanities" is some sort of deep question, holy fucking shit you all better be underage

>>19815911
The idea is it upgrades language as well. Imagine writing Hume but w modern conceptions of induction. You can see new derivations from that in ethics. Analytic metaphysics is really philosophy's philosophy where natural language can come off as intransigent and polemical in terms of communication. Hell you could derive a humean logic language assuming he had the want to do so and you could check it w a verification standard. You could then derive a linguistics from it and invent new languages. Analytic metaphysics would need very formal language to do this.

>>19815911
>>19815956
Here's something you can do in formal languages that you can't do in natural, functions. With functions you can create novel approaches in language and be concise and more universal and create more concepts than you can in natlangs. Of course you could just use natlang but you would, to be completely accurate, write an intro textbook to it then use the same symbols. Natural language is necessarily deficient cf formal languages.

>Incredible thread. imagine thinking "STEM vs Humanities" is some sort of deep question, holy fucking shit you all better be underage
This is the way continental philosophy academics want you to think.

>>19816000
You're being redundant. Continental philosophy is simply philosophy. Analytic "philosophy" is a polite way of saying being the fluffer for STEMfags.

Ignore the retards in this thread arguing against logic, these are the same faggots that get filtered by fucking Aristotle and then complain about how it's all just pointless anyway, lmao.

>>19816024
You have never read Aristotle.

>>19816009
I don't love ANALytic philosophy, but I started with the Greeks and went on through the CUNTinental canon, and the experience made me understand exactly why ANALytic philosophy happened.

I mean holy shit it's nearly ALL just language games. If I ever had to actually work with that, I would see no option other than going ANALytic as well - not to suck up to STEMfags, but simply to point out how much retardation there is in the field. Being a STEM cocksleeve just happens as a byproduct of that.

>>19815835
of course we use natural language in math also, it would be retarded to just throw into the trash a complete way of expressing arguments as you are doing with symbolic logic

>>19816034
>>19816009
your entire worldview comes from memes.

>>19816040
That's why linguistic philosophy and phenomenology developed though. Analytic philosophy wasn't an attempt to get over the problem, it was a retreat into English style empiricism and a vague preference for "clarity." Thankfully pragmatism kept enough people sane until Wittgenstein could come and deliver the death blow.

Even the thing analytics were rebelling against, the British idealism, wasn't that bad. Just a typical era of people expressing syncretic philosophical ideas within a mediocre framework (warmed over, hand me down Hegel).

>>19816050
I am just making some of the classics available for others who wish painful death on all an*lytics.

>>19816009
Continental philosophy is almost entirely existential. Analytic philosophy is external. In any case analytic philosophy covers continental but formality and rigorousness are beneficial in continentalism too. In fact that's sorta most of the deconstructionists point.
Analytic continentalism is regular today.

>>19816066
the father of phenomenology was quite versed in symbolic logic and mathematics, he would think you are retarded for sure

>>19816034
I have, but I bet you didn't. You're too busy autistically raging at fucking analytic philosophy, too read anything. We get it dude, you failed high-school math and now you hate analytic philosophy because that's like, just all math and science and shit right? faggot.

>>19816066
>Analytic philosophy wasn't an attempt to get over the problem, it was a retreat into English style empiricism and a vague preference for "clarity."
Well I agree - it is a cope. I just say that I understand where that cope came from.

>>19816009
Continental "philosophy" is just an an attempt to mask some sort of political agenda in speculative, masturbatory nonsense, and its entire discourse is just each successive thinker doing clever linguistic tricks to sidestep their predecessors.
Analytic philosophy is just an attempt to deal with philosophical issues while having some standards.

>>19816082
>>19816009
>Analytic "philosophy" is a polite way of saying being the fluffer for STEMfags.
>Continental "philosophy" is just an an attempt to mask some sort of political agenda in speculative, masturbatory nonsense, and its entire discourse is just each successive thinker doing clever linguistic tricks to sidestep their predecessors.
Now it all makes sense.

>>19816066
Analytic philosophy from its get-go had Frege, who was an analytic platonist, and GE Moore who wrote analytic ethics and ascribed to metaphysics. You're speaking about partly Russell but mostly the vienna circle (Godel was a part of that as was Popper but Godel was a huge platonist then later an intuitionist). The linguistic turn died around the 70's iirc and analytic rigorousness has been applied to lots of fields. It's become recently mostly in the view of a "handmaiden to science" but, as you said, philosophy is more fundamental than that. There just hasn't been a huge insight in really either the sciences or philosophy and I blame academia but that's not to be dismissive of analytic philosophy.

>>19816071
Husserl said explicitly that he had no interest in formal logic and viewed it as sub-philosophical. Husserl's earliest work under Weierstrass, the Philosophy of Arithmetic, both predates "logic" as you mean it, and was psychologistic and intuitionistic anyway. Logical Investigations is a repudiation of psychologism for a rationalist proto-phenomenology, it has nothing to do with the kind of logicism Russell turned to after his own flirtation with intuitionism.

>>19816074
I have read lots of Aristotle. What do you think the status of logic is in Aristotle's philosophy? I never depreciated the importance of logic for Aristotle, I recommended starting with Aristotle (and Leibniz) to gain an appreciation of its origins.

I also know far, far more maths than you do.

>>19816067
Analytic continentalism is, but continental analyticism isn't, unless you count autistic Germans trying to show how liberal they are by importing English philosophy. And then they mostly import pragmatism.

>>19816103
>I also know far, far more maths than you do.
Not him but can you write a hegelian/taoist/heraclitean math model?

>>19816066
>That's why linguistic philosophy and phenomenology developed though. Analytic philosophy wasn't an attempt to get over the problem, it was a retreat into English style empiricism and a vague preference for "clarity." Thankfully pragmatism kept enough people sane until Wittgenstein could come and deliver the death blow.
>Early analytic philosophers were all Anglos or reverting back to some anglo sensibility
>analytic philosophers were/ are all naive empiricists
>both Wittgenstein's early and later works weren't highly influential within analytic philosophy, and the latter didn't inspire one of the most significant movements within it.
You would know that these assertions are all untrue if you had even the slightest understanding of the history of philosophy. What is it with supporters of the so-called historicist tradition being either completely ignorant of this history or just straight up lying about it?

>>19816122
http://nlab-pages.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/nlab/show/Science+of+Logic

>>19816093
Not him but I don't think adopting a new logic will bring about a world-turning revolution in human thought as we have been promised. I have studied a little bit of FOL when I dabbled in analytic philosophy several years ago and I think the only gains I got from that was a better ability to formulate arguments in informal contexts. But then I looked at what upper-level courses in logic had for me and I wasn't all that excited to take them. As I've said, I don't believe any of this will produce a fundamentally new and profound philosophy by its own. There's been plenty of great philosophers before us who relied on nothing but simple syllogisms fornulated in natural language.

>>19816103
nothing says philosophical and intellectual depth like being mad about "le anglos." on the internet.

>>19816093
In my opinion, the whole philosophical project has been stalled for a long time, and both continentals and analytics are doing not much about it. What passes for interesting in academic philosophy these days is just meta-commentary on the breakdown of philosophy and the turn to post-Marxist liberal critical theory.

I know the linguistic turn died, but analytic philosophy had already passed out of its ideal language phase by the '50s and never really got back there, barring in-house and uninteresting exceptions like Kripke and truly embarrassing shit like analytic metaphysics and analytic Marxism.

The difference to me is that while continentals and analytics are both 95% non-thinkers just copy pasting earlier stuff, of the remaining 5% of each, the continentals are at least adhering to the end-points reached by continental traditions, while the analytics are getting lost in autistic puzzles that are self-referential and only exist within analytic philosophy (which has had no remit and no reason for existing since the '50s). At least the continentals aren't further muddying and confusing the already barren field.

>>19816122
Why would you want to do that?

>>19816122
Unsubstantiated claim because you know I know much more than you and I'm also taller.

>>19816154
Only post-1900 Anglos and then only a lot of them. And you can't really blame Americans since they were impoverished by the English influence, but American pragmatism smashed through that quickly enough. Scots are also good.

>>19816170
just wait til more philosophers learn category theory and more interesting results will come

>>19816103
>Husserl's earliest work under Weierstrass, the Philosophy of Arithmetic, both predates "logic" as you mean it.
This sort of logic begins with Frege and he was developing it over decade before Husserl published anything. You could have looked this up before saying this. It really isn't that hard.
>Germans trying to show how liberal they are by importing English philosophy.
It was started by a German and then imported to England by a couple of Brits. Not only are you wrong, you have it completely backwards.

>>19816150
Science of logic is an overview and basic verification system. That's not a mathematical model, just variables to achieve when you make one.

>>19816152
Well that may be true in some regards but to get past the empirical interpretation of a field you need a formal language. Linguistics purely as a science would be ridiculous (and would be even worse served as a social construct which I'm sure you've seen in part and parcel and know the issues of natural language w that). So it's good for every field not to mention the field of fields (philosophy/metaphysics).
In terms of application having newer logic languages that can be applied in ai etc is immediately beneficial to even a layman.

>>19816170
do you ever manage to convince anyone with these surface level musings? or do people just see right through you as a boring pseud with nothing to say?

>>19816170
Well "epistemological priviliege" was developed in continental philosophy but was solved in analytic philosophy.

>why would you want to do that
What if it makes learning math easier for kids or intuits a new calculus for math?

>unsubstantiated claim
?

>>19816124
Meant to reply to you with the "I'm taller" comment above, but got distracted because your greentext takedown is hard to follow. Can you restate it?

>>19816184
I'm open to anything. I don't care where innovation comes from at this point. However my suspicion is that instead of innovating our way out of anything, we're just going to automate the shit that's already broken and mistakenly call that an accomplishment.

>>19816193
It starts with many people. Boole, Frege, Peirce. However, what I was referring to by "logic as you mean it" was the craze for full-fledged symbolic logic that emerged in the first decades of the twentieth century as a true movement, because I was contrasting this with Husserl. Even if you believe this entire tradition was in Frege's mind ready to hatch, it is irrelevant to whether Husserl was doing that.

Another good indication that logic doesn't teach you to think. You have probably spent thousands of hours learning symbols and squiggles but you can't follow the meaning behind an exchange, only zig-zag incoherently to try to score "gotcha" points.

Your second point is not remotely relevant to what I was talking about. I was talking about the recent German tendency to make a show of learning logic because they reject earlier German philosophy as tainted by fascism and so on.

Calm down before reading and replying. Can you get to a computer and stop posting from your phone? Not treating conversations like chatroom catfights would probably help you collect your thoughts better.

>>19816218
That's fair enough, I can't speak to that but I wouldn't doubt it. I misquoted with the "unsubstantiated claim" thing, my bad.

>What if it makes learning math easier for kids or intuits a new calculus for math?
That's one of the noblest goals, I agree. Anything that contributes to this would be fine by me. Pluralistic or pragmatic mathematics and the search for alternative foundations should be the next big movement. Sadly we still have people wasting their time on pseudo-philosophy like set theory.

>>19816199
>That's not a mathematical model, just variables to achieve when you make one.
are u dumb

>>19816236
you have absolutely zero idea about anything you're talking about.

>>19816122
not related but hegel has an interesting critique of proof relevance in mathematics, which is pretty much solved by constructive mathematics http://nlab-pages.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/nlab/show/proof+relevance

>>19816248
? I asked if one could create a mathematical model in line w hegelianism. That's like one line of text and science of logic isn't formal anyways.

>>19816295
Constructivity in math was shown to be incomplete granted I'd love to dive into both hegel and constructive math more later. I posted quotes,
>>19815714
>>19815719

>>19816204
>
It starts with many people. Boole, Frege, Peirce. However, what I was referring to by "logic as you mean it" was the craze for full-fledged symbolic logic that emerged in the first decades of the twentieth century as a true movement, because I was contrasting this with Husserl. Even if you believe this entire tradition was in Frege's mind ready to hatch, it is irrelevant to whether Husserl was doing that.
My statement was responding to your claim that Husserl"s work predated it. It wasn't about what Husserl did but when he did it. It's why I didn't bother quoting the part of your sentence about nature of his work.
>our second point is not remotely relevant to what I was talking about. I was talking about the recent German tendency to make a show of learning logic because they reject earlier German philosophy as tainted by fascism and so on.
Fair enough, your sentence was vague enough that I interpreted it differently. That being said, I think it's more of a case of Germans importing German philosophy that was adopted by the English speaking world because it was chased out of the German speaking world by the fascists, so you characterization of it is still wrong.

>>19816326
>hat's like one line of text and science of logic
that is a partial formalization of the logic of science. a formalization of the whole text would be a huge task. maybe the guy that wrote it only wanted to formalize that one part, maybe he does not have time, maybe it is a failed project that still gives some insights. some guy just asked for a math model of hegel: this is a math model of a small part of hegelian tought.

>science of logic isn't formal anyways.
yes of course that is the reason why someone is trying to formalize it

There are no arguments. Can anyone who has reached the limit bother with arguments, causes, effects, moral considerations, and so forth? Of course not. For such a person there are only un- motivated motives for living. On the heights of despair, the pas- sion for the absurd is the only thing that can still throw a demonic light on chaos. When all the current reasons—moral, esthetic, religious, social, and so on—no longer guide one's life, how can one sustain life without succumbing to nothingness? Only by a connection with the absurd, by love of absolute uselessness, lov- ing something which does not have substance but which simu- lates an illusion of life.

>>19816103
>I also know far, far more maths than you do.
Do you really? it sounds like you're compensating for something to me.

>>19816103
Aristotle was a first rate logician and uses logical analysis extensively throughout his philosophy. Of course Aristotle would be on the side of logic, are you retarded? Read his Organon, Physics, and Metaphysics.

>>19816363
I see is that pittsburgh school then?

>>19816371
Sadly yes, I wasted a lot of my life on it.

>>19816488
As I've had to say several times now, I indicated this above when I was the first person to recommend Aristotle. I asked you a specific question: What is the status of logic in Aristotle's philosophy? How does he ground it, and what does it ground? How did it develop in his thought? That would be a good discussion for a thread on logic, its nature and value, etc.

You only speak in generalities, "read this," "I bet you haven't read that." I'm trying to have an actual discussion with you. You haven't read Aristotle beyond a surface encounter in Logic 101, if that.

>>19816755
For aristotle logic is grounded in substance. He uses an actuality/potentiality metric.

Example,
Socrates (individual substance /very potential) is a man (less potential)
Man is a mortal (more actual)
Socrates is a mortal (takes substance, which it must start at for Aristotle metaphysically but his logic allows assertions).

>>19815138
because I'm not gay even though I don't own a dog house.