I want to read the Tractatus and Philosophical Investigations,

File: 1387219761745.jpg (72KB, 360x600px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 360x600px

>>7239765

bump for interest

File: 1420156274834.jpg (103KB, 1499x1000px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1499x1000px

>>7239765
>>7239822
>>7239822

very good
derek_goldrei_-_propositional_and_predicate_calculus_a_model_of_argument


paul_richard_halmos_-_naive_set_theory


too concise 4u:
wolfgang_rautenberg_-_a_concise_introduction_to_mathematical_logic
(the first chapter is enough)

Hey guys, I've been dreaming about Wittgenstein lately, and I dreamt about him most recently last night.

Here's what happened:

I'm in college, and I learn that one of my professors, a sardonic veteran academic who studied under Michel Foucault and knew Wittgenstein [not true, as far as I know, specially since Witty is dead]. Somehow or other, I convince him to let me meet him. Then suddenly we're waiting for him in my old middle school's library. We're eating lunch, having sandwiches, me and the professor, and we're waiting for W. and his wife to show up.

My professor gives me a few ground rules. Don't draw attention to the fact that he's Wittgenstein. Don't ask him about hidden rihnos. Don't even mention the titles of his books. I say, that's fine, having a sandwich with the guy is good enough for me, this is a once in a lifetime opportunity, and I thank him again for doing me this favor.

Suddenly a man sits down next to me at our round wooden table and of course it's W. and he says hey to my professor and they shake hands and then his wife comes into view across the table and my professor stands up and they stare coldly at each other and mention how it's been a while and so on. Nobody's paying attention to me.

Then my professor introduces me and says Hey, this is Anon, a student of mine. W. puts out his hand and says, "Hey there—Ludwig" and I put my hand in his and say, "Hey—Picture theory of language." And for a second I don't even realize I've said this, but I notice the mood's turned awkward. Then I say, "Sorry, I just realized that instead of my name I said Pict—you know. Sorry, my name's Anon, I don't know why I said that. Now this is simultaneously the best and worst moment of my life." They all laugh at that.

W's boyfriend in the dream is Focault with thick hair in his late 20s he's funny and a good storyteller. He's mostly talking to my professor, and W. and me mostly stay quiet. Then for some reason both MF and my professor leave the table and it's just me and W. It's awkward, but I attempt the tactic of addressing the awkwardness head-on, in an effort to be funny and candid and also to impress W. with my awareness. I say, "Looks like we're in the dreadful situation of being one-on-one." And W. chuckles and says, "Looks like it."

Turns out my professor is actually gay.

>>7239859

Thanks a lot, my man.

On a first look, those books relate more to Formal Logic, right? Or do they include some introductory aspects of Language Philosophy too?

Don't be intimidated by Witty. He's actually a nice guy if you get to meet him.

File: 1444873594541.jpg (203KB, 1968x1017px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1968x1017px

>>7240013
only formal logic. if you know a few formal logics, you know how to categorize the informalized ones that people do (what deductive rules they use, such as the excluded middle or not, what notion of valid statements they use), the sole purpose of logic is really to explore the notion of the validity of a statement. learning formal logic is to learn the skeleton of reasoning (or rather, the choices/obvious opinions that people make and try to justify through what they call reason)

stick to goldrei, he is clear and deals with first order logic in details. do not hesitate to look at the constructive logics, because the first order logic deals only with validity as truth of the statements (bringing the paradoxes of the material implications). the other logics say that validity of the statements is their justification.

there is a book on constructive logic, but it is formal
anne_sjerp_troelstra_&_dirk_dalen_-_constructivism_in_mathematics_an_introduction

there is an handbook for more details
dov_gabbay_&_franz_guenthner_-_handbook_of_philosophical_logic

Many logics are not formalized and the para-consistent ones are not really explored currently.

File: 1418693378587.jpg (226KB, 1582x1362px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1582x1362px

>>7240110
modal logic is worth studying, formalized or not, if you have faith in necessity and sufficiency.

File: 1441019227433.jpg (212KB, 1711x1127px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1711x1127px

>>7240114
this is a formalization by Kurt Godel's ontological proof of the unformalized deduction of Anselm

https://warosu.org/sci/thread/S7345159#p7345331

File: 1416780131342.gif (3KB, 421x237px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 421x237px

>>7240128

>>7240110
>the other logics say that validity of the statements is their justification.
or use other notions of validity.

Well, Aristotle is a must for learning logic. I'd also recommend Hegel and Kant, probably the most logical philosophers ever.

File: 1418162088994.gif (47KB, 600x377px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 600x377px

kant is right by the way. the mind/imagination is not a tool to know synthetically . Nietzche is right that analytical truths are worthless, since they only reflect what people desire, like and dislike.

only life brings synthetically knowledge.

this thread has completely scrambled my brains.

>>7240182

logic proofs are generally not difficult as long as you understand the language being used

>>7240110
I would discourage any reader trying to get into Wittgenstein from trying to apply all this symbological modal jargon into their reading. If anything, Wittgenstein should be analyzed from an anthropological angle.

>>7240241
yes, but to understand this, you must do logic first.

>>7240155
They do not use post-fregian logic