Hello /lit/, since you (or /sci/) are considered...

If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /lit/ - Literature

You are currently reading a thread in /lit/ - Literature

Thread images: 6

File: Philosophiae-Naturalis-Principia-Mathematica.jpg (494 KB, 750x500)
Image search:
[iqdb]
[SauceNao]
[Google]

494 KB, 750x500

Hello /lit/, since you (or /sci/) are considered the genius tier of 4chins, I bring my question to you.

What is the most up to date philosophical equivalent of Newton's (or Whitehead/Russel's) Principia? I'm looking to read THE book on philosophy no matter how long it takes me, but I'm not familiar with any modern philosophers. Bonus if it involves mathematics/science, but I'm looking for something along the lines of the ultimate book of knowledge avaialble to modern man.

>i'll ask /sci/ too to avoid bias

>>

>>7591835

READ THE STICKY

START WITH THE GREEKS

DEVELOP YOUR OPINION

>>

>>7591835

SWTG

>>

S W T G

W

T

G

>>

>>7591835

SICP

>>

Russel and Whitehead's Principia isn't a philosophy book, nor is Newton's. Since you're nothing but a simpleton who has never seriously studied anything nor went to Wikipedia to even research about what you are talking about, I can only recommend you to go to http://logicmatters.net and download Smith's guide to self-teaching logic. Learn the propositional calculus, predicate calculus, intuitionistic logic and normal modal logic. Then, if you're still serious about studying something which "involves mathematics/science" keep on studying set theory and some discrete mathematics (such as functions) and tackle Gödel's proofs of his Incompleteness Theorems. After that, delve deep into axiomatic set theory (specially ZFC) and learn tackle the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem. After that you can continue studying the semantic of theories or proof theory. I recommend starting with Hilbert-style systems, moving to natural deduction and then to the sequent calculus. But at this point it really doesn't matter, since you'll have studied them a bit while studying the systems of logic.

You can thank me later.

>>

>>

>Newton's Principia

There are slim chances of OP not being underage

>>

>>7591865

Then just give up.

>>

>>7591865

Read Pinecone you faggot

>>

>>7591865

>i'm up to my ears with plato and aristotle, cant i jump forward a few millenia?

lmao

no point m8

just re-read the greeks

all western philosophy is just footnotes to plato

>>

>>7591835

Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra is considered the height of philosophy if that is what you're asking.

>>

>>7591865

>help /lit I need advice

>no that's bad advice screw you

Go away already.

>>

Why don't you become a modern age wizard and crack open your SICP, anon?

>>

>>

>>7591892

>Russell

lmao

literally who

start with the greeks

>>

>>7591892

There's no philosophy found in math you faggot, that's concrete.

>>

>>7591899

>math

murika

>>

>>7591835

There is no such book, but you would probably enjoy Hofstadter's "Gödel, Escher, Bach".

>>

>>7591901

SWTG

>>

>>7591901

Read the Bible.

>>

The Holy Bible, lad

>>

>>7591835

The Holy Bible

>>

>>7591835

not literature. reported.

>>

the only "ultimate knowledge" to be had in philosophy is that you know nothing and that reason is arbitrary and is driven by the passions. if this is the red pill you're looking for then read the pre-socratics and plato, especially the symposium, and apply them to your life.

>>

>>7591900

>europoors with no money for entertainment coming on 4chan to post about Americans.

What a sad life.

>>

what the fuck lit

>>

>>7591970

NIHILIST

I

H

I

L

I

S

T~~dw anon, i was 16 once too~~

>>

>>7591835

no longer exists

welcome to the modern world

based on the assumptions buried in your post, though, you should read against method

>>

>>7591835

You're an idiot if you think philosophy nowadays deals with science and mathematics the same way it did back in Newton's or Russell's times. Ever since the fall of logicism philosophy have had no place in mathematics aside from meme fields such as homotopy type theory, which is only related to philosophy due to it being fundational. Most of modern philosophy will therefore not contain any mathematics and any books that do are likely talking out of their ass.

>>

>>7591857

Moron here. After I complete all of this, should I move onto to Greek philosophy for ideas and inspiration rather than studying the nature of logic? Or should I use my new found abilities in logic to come up with my own foundation? I feel like reading the works of others then building upon that would be easier-- no need to reinvent the wheel.

>>

El oh el

>>

>ultimate book of knowledge avaialble to modern man.

You think you're ready for it?

>>

Descartes. Meditations on First Philosophy

Hume. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

Kant. Critique of Pure Reason

>>

>>7592138

It really depends. Logic has applications in philosophy of language, philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, formal epistemology, philosophy of mathematics and many other fields.

W.V.O. Quine, Lewis, Davidson, Kripke, Martin-Löf are all philosophers who dealt with logic and mathematics in their work.

>>7592127

>homotopy type theory

>meme field

>>

>>7591835

I think you're trolling, but if you aren't, such a book doesn't exist. I don't really understand what's the relation between Newton and russel Principia, but if you mean a foundational book of the discipline then I suppose Plato's Dialogues is the closes thing to it (get a Comment to read along with it). How can you see the point of mocking Plato if you haven't read it ? If you really want to skip the greeks you could read Genesis Jobs and Ecclesiaste where a lot of important philosophical questions are raised. Otherwise if you really only care about the modern era you should read Hume's Enquiry. For something eastern I suggest the Tao te ching and the Dhammapada sutra

>>

H U M E

>>

>>7592127

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics

>Knows nothing of set theory nor forcing

>Knows nothing of how mathematics really are

>Cites homotopy as a theory in which philosophy is relevant

>Appears to know something

>>

Are you really this naive to be thinking that you could grasp a "philosophical equivalent of Newton's (or Whitehead/Russel's) Principia" even if there was such a thing? There is no one such book that covers all areas of contemporary analytic philosophy. Instead, you need to narrow things down. Pick any subbranch of analytic philosophy, and google "most influential books in contemporary x" etc. replacing 'x' with the area of your interest: political philosophy, epistemology, philosophy of biology, etc. These books will typically encapsulate the branch's breakthroughs.

>>7591857

Both of the Principias are philosophical through-and-through since they were intended to lay down the fundamental principles of Physics and Maths. All things fundamental boil down to certain theoreticians that postulate and commit to the things they believe as faithful representations of reality. This is the intersection of ontology, psychology, and logico-mathematics.

>some discrete mathematics (such as functions)

Literally what. Your whole 'guide' (especially the seemingly random order of things) to studying logic/mathematics is just bizarre: you don't seem to provide any justification for it.

>>7592127

>You're an idiot if you think philosophy nowadays deals with science and mathematics the same way it did back in Newton's or Russell's times.

You've got it all backwards: the birth and growth of Mathematical Logic has ultimately showed just how philosophical everything deep down really is. It's all a matter of philosophy. Alas, the field of Mathematical Logic is still a relatively unknown, abstract and 'obscure' field which only a minority of mainstream mathematicians pay serious attention to, let alone physicists.

Also, logicism is just one of the many foundations of maths. Furthermore, there is neologicism. But besides those two, there are many, many more.

>>

>>7593040

>doesn't know what Russell's type theory is

>intentionally misinterpreting the post

An illiterate on /lit/, who would've guessed?

Thread images: 6

Thread DB ID: 427319

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.

This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.

If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's