[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

File: 45 KB, 316x414, Russell1907-2[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

1517066

Anonymous Wed Feb 2 21:26:50 2011 No.1517066 [Reply] [Original]

Hey /lit/.

I want to get into learning logic. Basically, I want to get to the point where I can understand Principia Matematica and the latest logical axioms (I hear there's only one now). My question is, where the hell do I start? I don't mind reading quite a few books and struggling a bit, but I'm meh at math (only got to calculus and that was a few years ago), so I'm not sure what I need to know and where I need to find out about it. If there's a list of necessities before I tackle it, I'd love it. I'm also wondering if there are any other great logic books out there. I'm thinking Wittgenstein, Godel, Russell, etc. I wouldn't even mind discussing other stuffs like linguistic philosophy, as long as it's focused more on a scientific basis than a postulation sort of basis (existentialism and whatsuch has no proof or real background, and I know that's simplified beyond belief).

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 2 21:29:50 2011 No.1517076 Inb4: Aristotle.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 2 21:32:50 2011 No.1517083 >>1517076 See, if that's where it starts then I'm down. I just dunno what works of his would be the best. I can't help but thinking that Rhetoric and Poetics aren't going to be the biggest help in my search for absolute truth.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 2 21:33:50 2011 No.1517089 >>1517083 Inb4: Aristotle's Logic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 2 21:35:50 2011 No.1517096 I am interested as well. I've had a lot of "history of philosophy," but my program's curriculum sort of petered out at the beginning of the 20th century.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 2 21:36:50 2011 No.1517097 OK. I'm a newfag when it comes to logic, but I know that it is a vast field of knowledge. Are you into informal logic, formal logic or symbolic logic?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 2 21:37:50 2011 No.1517105 >>1517097 I... have no idea. What's the difference? And got it, start with Aristotle. Then where?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 2 21:38:50 2011 No.1517109 Wittgenstein, Godel, Russell... wow, those are heavy names :). Did you already have some kind of induction into the field? I mean, I began by reading this book here: http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Irving-M-Copi/dp/0130102024 It's very helpful!

>>	Neuro !qdUPARcrn. Wed Feb 2 21:38:50 2011 No.1517110 Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is a good start for a couple of reasons, including the fact that it's short.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 2 21:39:50 2011 No.1517115 File: 22 KB, 314x475, 9780631194446.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1517105 >Aristotle NO NO NO You start with this. This man had to invent modern logic because Aristotle's logic was so shitty.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 2 21:40:50 2011 No.1517120 File: 191 KB, 439x522, LargeThumbnail.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1517110 MFW that's one of the most difficult books in the field.

>>

Anonymous Wed Feb 2 21:44:50 2011 No.1517138

>>1517120

Really?

>>1517109

Really? This seems too nice to not be a troll, I'll check out my school's library. You've also given me the idea to take out the Very Short Introduction to it. Thanks!

>>1517110

YOU FIEND. I'll give it a thorough perusing.

>>1517115

Why do I know Aristotle, but not this man? R u firrilz?

>>

Anonymous Wed Feb 2 21:45:50 2011 No.1517142

I don't think it's necessary to start with Aristotle. Philosophical logic is very different from mathematical logic ; they complement each other in many ways, but understanding one won't necessarily allow you to understand the other. I recommend reading both eventually, but just because something is older doesn't mean it's the best starting point.

If you're interested in modern formal logic, Tarski's Introduction to Logic is very good. It approaches logic mathematically, but it doesn't require any advanced mathematical knowledge to understand.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 2 21:46:50 2011 No.1517144 >>1517109 Can't go wrong with that one, OP. It teaches you the basics of the discipline and even has some very entertaining exercises to melt your brain.

>>

Anonymous Wed Feb 2 21:48:50 2011 No.1517151

http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/u_grads/course_details.htmlhttp://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/u_grads/course_detail
s.html

Here's the reading lists for Cambridge philosophy undergrads. Inside you'll find a reading list for logic. It begins with introductions and escalates. I don't know if it'll bring you to Principia Mathematica, but it'll surely give you a solid foundation.

>>

Anonymous Wed Feb 2 21:48:50 2011 No.1517152

>>1517138
> R u firrilz

Yes. Frege invented modern logic. I'm not going to give you a summary of the history of early 20th century philosophy, you do have internet access.

Frege is more important than Wittgenstein.
Frege is more important than Russell.
Frege is more important than Aristotle.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 2 21:50:50 2011 No.1517154 >>1517110 That's a pretty difficult read. And it probably be good to read Godel and Russell before that.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 2 21:52:50 2011 No.1517160 >>1517152 This is very true. Many people seem to regard Russel as the father of mathematical logic, but a lot of his work was just telling everybody about how awesome Frege's work was.

>>	♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI Wed Feb 2 21:52:50 2011 No.1517162 >>1517115 this

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 2 21:54:50 2011 No.1517172 >>1517138 >Why do I know Aristotle, but not this man? R u firrilz? a statement in a thread about logic is fallacious. thanks 4chan.

>>

Anonymous Wed Feb 2 21:55:50 2011 No.1517175

So. Frege sounds good. Will I, as an English major who only ever made it through calculus through sheer will of force, be able to understand him? My math skills are weak, and I might be able to talk with a friend who's into logic some, but otherwise I have nothing but myself.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 2 21:55:50 2011 No.1517181 >>1517172 There are no statements in that greentext.

>>

Anonymous Wed Feb 2 21:57:50 2011 No.1517186

>>1517175

You need to be able to do the following math to understand his actual work.

1+1=?
1=2. True or false?
f(x)=x+1. If x=1, f(x)=?

You need more to understand why he thinks certain people are naughty, but just don't pay too much attention to those parts and assume that he is correct in thinking that they are naughty.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 2 22:00:50 2011 No.1517194 >>1517186 I can do that! Sounds like a great start. So are there any great translations that I should seek out? I'll look for the reader, but if I can't find it are there any others that I should look into? Which of his actual texts rock?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 2 22:01:50 2011 No.1517199 >>1517181 HAHAHAHA. Logic FAIL.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 2 22:02:50 2011 No.1517202 >>1517181 I mean, not you, but your referenced post.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 2 22:08:50 2011 No.1517226 >>1517194 He didn't write much. Basically you want to read what's in the reader in the order that it's in, as well as the Foundations of Arithmetic.

>>

Anonymous Wed Feb 2 22:18:50 2011 No.1517259

>>1517226
* And this will naturally tie into your Russell interests because Russell eventually wrote Frege a letter that kind of fucked thing sup.

And I forgot (that reminded me) not just the foundations of arithmetic, but also read the basic laws of arithmetic. That's the one that got Russell'd.