new trivium chart just dropped

[Anonymous No.22990334]

whoa... it's even better than I could have imagined... and from some random dude too... thank you friend

t. original trivium chart creator

[Anonymous No.22990340]

>>22990334
>“Self help” grift book in first line
Immediately disregarded

[Anonymous No.22990350]

>>22990334
Where's On Christian Doctrine for Rhetoric?

[Anonymous No.22990362]

>>22990340
nobody has anything bad to say about atomic habits

[Anonymous No.22990413]

Extremely awful.

[Anonymous No.22990435]

Logic should be
1 - Organon by Aristotle
2 - Intro to Mathematical Logic by Enderton

[Anonymous No.22990478]

>>22990413
t. retard, probably

[Anonymous No.22990482]

>>22990478
t. retard, definitely

[Anonymous No.22990518]

>>22990482
t. retard and completely lacking in creativity

[Anonymous No.22990547]

>>22990334

Picrel is a much more concise and useful trivium chart.

[Anonymous No.22991527]

>>22990547
I made that chart originally, but I like the new chart more

[Anonymous No.22991546]

>>22990334
Honestly anon, when people meant 'grammar' in the middle ages/renaissance/enlightenment, they mostly meant Latin and Greek. English is quite the mess, on top of being simple, so you won't get a lot from studying its grammar. Consider a foreign language or a classical one

[Anonymous No.22992594]

oblivion

[Anonymous No.22993491]

>>22991527
And I think you're lying because you misunderstood the chart in the first place lol

[Anonymous No.22993569]

>>22990334
I followed your chart last year. Why remove A Mind for Numbers? I hate that it's written in a pop-sci way but it was my favorite book from the previous chart, very informative and it's the one book where I used a lot of what I learned from it. Classical Rhetoric is so hard to find, I couldn't even get it digitally. Copi's Introduction to Logic was also my favorite, why isn't it here?

Sister Miriam's Trivium filtered me, was only able to get around halfway in before dropping it. I think a better way to learning the Trivium is just reading the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.22993653]

>>22993491
First of all, how can you say that you understood the creation better than the creator? I was literally there, lol. But then again, that's something for me to prove to you, so I understand your skepticism.

Idk what I can do to prove that I originally created it. I can tell you that I made it in about two hours from my dorm room about 6 years ago. I can tell you that I learned about the Trivium from reading Stoner by John Williams. Stoner's lectures on the "grammar" of medieval poetry captured my heart. That Creative and Critical Thinking book was also an obsession I had for a while, which I then incorporated into the chart since I thought it was a brilliant book for its scope (which is rare among "critical thinking" books). But I ran into problems because it was not widely available (and a few other books on the chart are like that, making it poor for self-study). Thankfully, I was able to convince Raptureanon of Pykewater Library (RIP) to buy and scan a copy online for everybody to use.

I'd actually like you to share what you think the purpose was.

>>22993569
Those are questions you'd have the posit to the creator of the chart. I think the removal of Copi's logic isn't good, but I think that's due to a clash between people who love Aristotle and people who like modern logic (which I don't think needs to be the case).
>I think a better way to learning the Trivium is just reading the Greeks.
You won't learn the Trivium from merely reading the Greeks unless you specialize in the topics that are covered by Ancient Greek philosophers. It's like expecting to learn grammar by reading Shakespeare. And if Sister Miriam filtered you, then you have no hope in covering Aristotle's Organon.

[Anonymous No.22993698]

>>22993569
>>22993653
Also, not to ignore all of your concerns:
>Why remove A Mind for Numbers?
It's a good book, I think. I don't know why it was removed. I always feel like you can always "add" one of these self-help academic/method/etc. books to the chart. But then you risk making a chart that's all about preparing to learn and not enough on learning. Maybe that guy thought he was too good for it, or that it was too STEM-y (and thus took out Copi and Mind for Numbers). These are all unknowns.

By the way, Corbett is easy to find. There's 2 editions up on libgen, and annas archive has all 4 editions. So I don't think you tried hard enough to find it. There's other books in the original chart that are much harder to find (which I think is a mistake on my part for not considering that problem more).

[Anonymous No.22993702]

>>22993569
Finally, I'd love if you could go into detail about your overall experience. How long did it take you? Which parts of the chart did you like the most? What did you like the least or struggle with the most (if you can go into more detail)? Was it worth it?

[Anonymous No.22994266]

bump

[Anonymous No.22994270]

>>22990334
I keep saving these charts, but I never go through with reading them.

[Anonymous No.22995191]

>>22993698
>>22993702
I started the chart at the beginning of January. The last book I completed was at the end of June, so around six months. I didn't read all of them. I read both of the "start here" and then one in each section. And Trivium only read half of it.

My favorites books from it were Copi's Introduction to Logic and A Mind for Numbers. Still today they are in my favorite books. What I liked the least was An Introduction to English Grammar. Maybe it was because of the subject matter, I don't like grammar. Reading it was such a slog. It's written sort of like an encyclopedia and that made it even more boring. I did get through it, and I did learn a lot, but still was hard to complete, not because I didn't understand, but because I found it boring.

Trivium I couldn't finish. I felt like the amount of information was too overwhelming. The author would start talking about concepts I've never heard about, and then expect the reader to follow along. I found that the time I spent doing research about stuff I didn't understand in the book was much greater than the time I spend actually reading the book, and for this I dropped it. Now, ever since I've started reading the Greeks, and I find in these writings some of the concepts talked about in the book, so I'm of the opinion that if I read the Greeks first I would have done better in the book, but maybe I'm wrong.

[Anonymous No.22995452]

>>22990334
You're missing an "I" in Institutio.
Otherwise great trivium chart.

[Anonymous No.22996091]

>>22995191
>Trivium I couldn't finish. I felt like the amount of information was too overwhelming. The author would start talking about concepts I've never heard about, and then expect the reader to follow along. I found that the time I spent doing research about stuff I didn't understand in the book was much greater than the time I spend actually reading the book, and for this I dropped it. Now, ever since I've started reading the Greeks, and I find in these writings some of the concepts talked about in the book, so I'm of the opinion that if I read the Greeks first I would have done better in the book, but maybe I'm wrong.
This is why I think that replacing SMJ's Trivium with Aristotle's Organon, or maybe even baby Organon (Peter Kreeft's Socratic Logic) would have been the better move. That was actually one of the major improvements of the new Trivium chart.
>boring grammar
Yeah, grammar is boring. I wanted a grammar from a broad linguistic perspective. Maybe a better book will be discovered.

[Anonymous No.22996213]

>>22990362
Perhaps not, though it's still not an 'academic' text. Idk, personally I don't have a problem with it, though I can see how it is that one could see it being recommended and take the rest of the 'chart' with a grain of salt, to put it lightly.

[Anonymous No.22996218]

>>22991546
I agree with this. Probably worth going for latin in particular purely to build 'foundational intuition' for English if nothing else.

[Anonymous No.22996249]

>>22990334
are you litbros for real? how to read fucking BOOK??

[Anonymous No.22996257]

>>22996213
It's an autodidact chart.
>though I can see how it is that one could see it being recommended and take the rest of the 'chart' with a grain of salt, to put it lightly.
Because the hypothetical person in question is a posturing pseud who recoils at anything popular?

[Anonymous No.22996260]

>>22996218
Yep

OP, change the grammar sections of the chart to Latin

[Anonymous No.22996281]

>>22996218
>>22996260
completely unnecessary to fulfill the purpose of the Trivium. you learn some grammatical/linguistic elements at a higher level, but you also "waste" a lot of time learning things that have nothing to do with a universal grammar. granted, learning Latin is still a fantastic way to get deep into classical works, but in terms of a modern edition of the Trivium... we could do better.

[Anonymous No.22996290]

>>22996281
The thing with English grammar is that it is a bastardized language, so to speak, and it heavily borrows elements from many other languages (mostly Latin, some 30% Germanic), and so it's quite the mess, as I've said. Compared to that, Latin and Greek are regular and will give you more elements of Indo-European languages not at all present in modern English. These, in turn, could be transferred to lots of other languages and will give you a much stronger linguistic basis whence learning more becomes easier. The best English grammarian is going to be the one that knows Latin

[Anonymous No.22996319]

>>22996290
>The thing with English grammar is that it is a bastardized language, so to speak, and it heavily borrows elements from many other languages (mostly Latin, some 30% Germanic), and so it's quite the mess, as I've said
This is as much of a feature as it is a flaw. A solid English vocabulary gives you a smattering of Latin and Greek roots. Borges famously liked English for its flexibility in tone and ambience, which he felt made it a better language than Spanish for fiction.
>Compared to that, Latin and Greek are regular and will give you more elements of Indo-European languages not at all present in modern English. These, in turn, could be transferred to lots of other languages and will give you a much stronger linguistic basis whence learning more becomes easier.
This is true. But at that point, why not learn a language that is as alien as possible from English and Indo-European languages in general, so that one could be exposed to the full spectrum of linguistic features? Pick Mandarin, Finnish, and Nahuatl instead.
>The best English grammarian is going to be the one that knows Latin
Not true. There are entire swathes of Latin grammar that have no comparison in English, and vice versa. The only reason that polyglots tend to understand grammar better is because 1) they never learned grammar theoretically in the first place, simply accepting it as intuition; and 2) learning a language forced them to confront the diversity of possible grammars. The point is, you don't have to learn Latin to learn English grammar well, nor is it the most "efficient" and "comprehensive" way of learning either English grammar or grammar as a whole. That would be English grammar itself, linguistics in general, and perhaps a set of languages that covers "all the bases" on a practical level.

Look, I'm partial to a "Classical languages" side-quest in the future. I just don't think it's as fruitful for the purposes of the Trivium, which was to create a curriculum that fully explores the "phenomenology of ideas" or "landscape of ideas." That's what I found beautiful about the Trivium, that ancient and medieval pedagogy found a way to impart education about a general yet penetrating art of thinking. Latin is too... provincial and specialized for me to fully endorse it.

[Anonymous No.22996326]

Is there any point to the "trivium" charts besides larping? Anyone can understand grammar from mere pattern recognition by reading a lot. Logic is good but plays little role in actual thought.

[Anonymous No.22996331]

>>22996326
>Anyone can understand grammar from mere pattern recognition by reading a lot.
You'd only understand grammar at an intuitive level. It would be a knack, not true knowledge.
>Logic is good but plays little role in actual thought.
Maybe not in your thinking kek

[Anonymous No.22996342]

>>22996290
Trying to fit English, which is grammatically still Germanic, into the Latin grammar framework is what caused English school boys to run off to sea and die of nasty diseases in foreign climes. But it made much more sense than getting your knuckles rapped for speaking your natural language

But then the whole Trivium idea is dumb, unless you wanna LARP as a Fascist, move to Italy/Greece and wander the ruins while you rant and rave in Salvatore-style inarticulate gibberish like Ezra Pound

[Anonymous No.22996343]

>>22996331
the formal logic used in most philosophy is either trivial or very specialized. Drop the larp.

[Anonymous No.22996377]

>>22996343
>learning is for LARPers
>just trust this random guy's opinion on logic
No thank you. Mald harder.
>>22996342
>learning how to think at a granular level is dumb
>you should instead just trust the school system to feed you propaganda excerpts as part of English class to teach you how to think
I see what you're trying to do here.

[Anonymous No.22996386]

>>22996377
>I see what you're trying to do here.
You think you see, but you don't. It's obvious from the whole way you write. You are a mid-wit LARP'er

You don't "learn how to think" by listing self-help books and meme classics. You just out your autism

[Anonymous No.22996396]

>>22996377
You clearly haven't learned much if your reading comprehension is this poor. I never said learning is for larpers. I said that using a medieval method of learning is a larp designed to make you feel like an 11th century catholic theologian.

[Anonymous No.22996434]

>>22996386
You're not contributing anything of substance and you clearly wear your insecurities on your sleeve. Reading Aristotle's Organon made it much easier to speak and think clearly about any subject in general.
>>22996396
You'll never get anywhere if you confuse implication for reading comprehension. You didn't say that learning is for LARPers. But the content of the post strongly implied it.
>I said that using a medieval method of learning is a larp designed to make you feel like an 11th century catholic theologian.
There's no command to learn Latin or theology in any of the Trivium, and I've even fought against the notion that Latin is necessary to access the insights of the Trivium. The alleged "LARP" doesn't exist. You sound like a spiteful and petty person who's intimidated by other people spending their time on worthwhile pursuits (of which many exist on this board).

[Anonymous No.22996447]

>>22996434
>Reading Aristotle's Organon made it much easier to speak and think clearly about any subject in general.
And yet all you are effectively able to do is namedrop the title and make claims, which are easily disproven even by your ability to both read, understand, and formulate responses itt
Even the simple fact that you don't understand how criticism is contribution shows what your real motives for your LARP is. It is what we technically refer to as wanking

[Anonymous No.22996469]

>>22996447
>you don't understand how criticism is contribution
That's patently not true. I acknowledged substantial criticism, like here: >>22993569 >>22995191 >>22996290 and I responded to them in kind. Sometimes, I defended my thinking with a comprehensive rebuttal. Other times, I assented to their critique and adjusted my views.

Now, what did you offer? Can you honestly say that you made a "criticism" that is on the same level, or better, than the other posts made in this thread?

[Anonymous No.22996476]

>>22996447
>namedrop its title
the Organon is a set of works, not a title of anything in particular. stop trying to play around with things you dont understand you fuckin pseud

[Anonymous No.22996524]

The whole trivium-quadrivium approach is good but outdated as fuck. Grammar, logic, and rhetoric should be standard, but they are not enough in a modern threat environment. Some basic linguistics, semiotics, and higher math should be added alongside literary theory and SICP should be mandatory. Latin should be replaced with a more valuable language since its only use is for reading ancient texts and coining new terms. Nobody uses it to communicate outside of a few Catholics. At least Chinese and Arabic are still being used.

[Anonymous No.22996545]

>>22996524
Now this guy is cooking with gasoline. That's what I'm talking about. I'm onboard with virtually everything here.
>Some basic linguistics, semiotics, and higher math should be added
In other words, after Aristotle's Organon, one should move onto Peirce's collected works.
>alongside literary theory
So subtle that it could be easily missed, but absolutely true. Might as well try to apply one's understanding of rhetoric and semiotics. no?

[Anonymous No.22996630]

>>22996469
Those were not criticism, they fed into your wank-session. Which is why they obviously fit your criteria of what criticism ought to be. That is, feed into your premise, and with that your ego
>>22996476
>A set of works doesn't have a common reference title
At least now you finally show what the real theme here is - pseuds LARP'ing

[Anonymous No.22996643]

>>22996630
So... your definition of criticism is not
>ideas which challenge the point of the author and present an alternative way to truth
but rather
>petty insults that don't build anything and don't mean anything
That's sad. I genuinely feel bad for you if this is what you think discourse should look like. You have a depressing mindset.
>inb4 b-b-but that's not what I explicitly said so thats bad reading comprehension!!! you only made my ideas look dumb by exploring their implications and that makes me big sad.

[Anonymous No.22996650]

>>22996643
Projection is a nice defense mechanism. But off course you don't have that in your autism handbook. That's sad. You have a depressing mindset

[Anonymous No.22996654]

How did she do it, bros?

[Anonymous No.22996670]

>>22996650
The only person projecting here is you. And now you've stooped down to repeating somebody's insults back at them, projection and all, because you have a child's level of creativity and argumentation. How far will you go?

You know, this isn't your thread. You don't have to reply. You've talked a lot about "muh ego", yet you feel compelled to reply every time even though you have no ostensible stake here. You could just walk away. Will you take up the challenge?

[Anonymous No.22997110]

>>22996434
>the content of your post strongly implied it
no
>There's no command to learn Latin or theology in any of the Trivium

True, but that's not what I took aim at. The trivium was a curriculum designed specifically to assist university-goers who had little experience with abstract reasoning and debate before then, and needed to understand latin. Taking it out of this context makes little sense. Formal Logic only needs to be learned at an elementary level to make philosophical arguments in unrelated fields (although rewarding for its own sake). Rhetoric is good, but grammar wasn't initially taught to gain deeper understanding of the language they spoke; they just needed to learn an entirely new language. The first sense is not unrewarding, but it is also not necessary for anything further that a /lit/zen might be interested in. Taking the Trivium out of its original context is putting a square peg in a round hole.

[Anonymous No.22997166]

>>22997110
>Formal Logic only needs to be learned at an elementary level to make philosophical arguments in unrelated fields (although rewarding for its own sake).
Highly disagree. And formal logic without a strong base in "first philosophy" is wasted, since you learn not to think in terms of holistic, over-arching understanding, but rather in terms of arbitrary rules. Personally, both formal and informal logic fallacies started making a lot more sense to me when I started the Organon and beyond. If you don't have a solid grasp on ontology, predication, causation in the broad Aristotelian sense, etc., then you won't develop a deep understanding of what logic is and what its limits are.
>Rhetoric is good, but grammar wasn't initially taught to gain deeper understanding of the language they spoke; they just needed to learn an entirely new language.
>The first sense is not unrewarding, but it is also not necessary for anything further that a /lit/zen might be interested in.
Why wouldn't a /lit/izen be interested be interested in a deeper understanding of the language spoken? That sounds exactly up our alley. And grammar was absolutely thought of and spoken of in a sense of providing additional tools for communication. Medieval poetry was seen as having a grammatical dimension in terms of literary devices and structural rules employed.
>Taking the Trivium out of its original context is putting a square peg in a round hole.
Wrong, and admittedly wrong by your own hand. Every single branch of the trivium is worth learning for its own sake, and each branch dovetails well for strengthening the precision and flexibility of thought. Obviously, in the 12th century, the immediate need of such a curriculum was to both learn Latin, but ultimately to learn theology. But theology isn't the only field that we need rigorous thought for, no? How about... trying to cultivate our thinking faculties for general use? I can't think of a reason why somebody would be against that unless they feel like it could done "better" in some way.

[Anonymous No.22997459]

>>22996257
Seeing as you can't or refuse to read, let me make it painfully clear for you: I said nothing regarding "popularity", but rather that 'Atomic Habits' is not an academic text, so I can see why someone might take the rest with a grain of salt, especially seeing as a different "popular" popsci book was taken off the list, despite reportedly being useful. Seems like a lot of arbitrary decisions.
>pseud
Talk about calling the kettle black, especially on this board... hahahah

[Anonymous No.22997466]

Any "self-help" entry in any chart(or entire self-help charts, for that matter) should simply be substituted with "GO TO THERAPY YOU RETARD" in big red letters. If you read self help slop you realise you need to change but refuse to like a petulant child.

[Anonymous No.22997476]

>>22996524
Would you mind elaborating upon why you chose SICP? I remember hearing it was a "larp" book, as apparently nothing practical comes of it.

[Anonymous No.22997573]

>>22997459
Careful, you might pop a hemorrhoid.

[Anonymous No.22997581]

>>22997466
Why would you go to a therapist to learn how to study? That's retarded. You'd just waste the cost of a first session.

[Anonymous No.22997627]

>>22997466
>you need to change
>GO TO THERAPY
lol, lmao even

[Anonymous No.22997995]

>>22996545
Probably Barthes of Sebok's intros to semiotics instead, easier and more accessible. Reading Barthes' Elements of Semiology and then seeing how he applies that stuff in Mythologies is a fun exercise. Vol 2 of Peirce's collected works (Elements of Logic) would be good a good follow on from Aristotle and Hegel.

>>22997476
The objection to SCIP is that it uses scheme lisp rather than whatever's popular right now and people are filtered by the math. Its not meant to teach you the practicals of programming in a given language, but to teach you the core concepts of programming itself: abstraction, finding and working with general patterns etc. Scheme is a great teaching language because you can learn the basics in about an hour. SICP gives you a solid foundation and makes other programming languages easier.

[Anonymous No.22998034]

>>22990334
Aren't those books about logic pretty outdated? By reading a contemporary textbook on logic you'll learn about syllogisms too and also so much more.

[Anonymous No.22998061]

>>22997476
>Would you mind elaborating upon why you chose SICP? I remember hearing it was a "larp" book, as apparently nothing practical comes of it.
Not him but it's an introductory book on computer science and not programming, which is very confusing for midwits.

[Anonymous No.22998064]

>>22998034
The reason you should begin with Aristotle is that way your learning logic from the ground up. You know how logicians have built upon each other's work, the common source they can all be traced back to, the origins of fundamental concepts. You gain a much deeper insight than just reading a textbook. Aristotle's logic is still useful for most ordinary use cases anyway. Its also going to improve your reading skills and provides a gateway into Aristotle's other work. Imagine reading the latest logic textbook, ignoring the Categories, and then jumping into the Metaphysics and not knowing what the fuck he's talking about or being thrown off because your confusing his use of words like "species" and "essence" with the everday English use of these words rather than specific meaning Aristotle intended.

[Anonymous No.22998236]

>>22998034
They're only outdated in the sense of the breadth, syntax, and robustness of the logic itself. But if you're studying logic with no aware of its connection to ontology, then you're essentially playing with empty, meaningless functions that have no bearing on reality whatsoever. I highly recommend you at least study Aristotelian logic *in tandem* with what he has to say about the Categories, Metaphysics, etc., so that you develop a much richer intuition about what logic is and how it works. After all, if it isn't grounded in the "natural joints" of the world, then what use is it?

[Anonymous No.22998586]

bump

[Anonymous No.22998612]

>>22990334
But OP, you're a faggot.

[Anonymous No.22998615]

>>22993569
Never heard of A Mind for Numbers before your post. It looks interesting. I might just get it.

Thanks.

[Anonymous No.23000104]

bumperino