/lit/, does anyone have a source to get a good grasp about p

>>9030593

- look at kripke and work your way backwards for more contemporary stuff.
- vienna circle and logical positivism

and of course, wittgenstein.

File: catarina dutilh novaes.jpg (66KB, 506x380px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 506x380px

>tfw no philosopher of logic wife

>>9030831
this.

>>9030593
Who's this artist? Where do you find his stuff?

>>9030593
Become a logical trivialist, then most of the stuff doesn't matter.

File: a738ceb05c79dc56c24e0fa68bbcd248.jpg (162KB, 736x989px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 736x989px

>>9032010
it seems to be Takato Yamamoto

File: RF6MY9u.png (689KB, 500x717px) Image search: [Google]

689KB, 500x717px

>>9030598
Why these three specifically?

I was thinking of looking at Quine's book Philosophy of Logic.

>>9030593

Firstr you have to eat all the eggs.

>>9032892
No stop

>>9032600
Not the one who responded to you earlier, but Quine's ideas and posterior philosophies of language such as pragmatism worked towards separating themselves and "correcting"the though of logic positivism. So a good start would be to understand what Quine, Fregue and company are against.

>>9032909
Thanks for that, but I would still like a book that covers the history of logic and goes into what it is currently studying; I brought up Quine's book because that's what I thought it was

>>9032919
Not who you're responding to, but why would you want that? Just read the primary sources as they are infinitely more enjoyable and will provide you with a complete understanding of the development of philosophical logic through the history of analytic philosophy

File: e170ec7fca3533df1fed06e4e75cc790.jpg (106KB, 500x733px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 500x733px

>>9032931
I plan on reading those, but like I said in my OP, I would like to grasp just what is going on in this field. It was just a very big surprise that something like Defensible Reasoning was in logic so now I want to see what else there is.

>>9032919
The only thing that I can recommed without going into Ayer's logic positivism or The philosophy of the XX century is a book in spanish called "La Búsqueda del Significado" by Luis Valdés Villanueva. Sorry I can't be more useful.

>>9034208
Heidegger didn't really do anything to logic.

Use your brain.

File: fffff.jpg (572KB, 905x1295px) Image search: [Google]

572KB, 905x1295px

Any recs for history of logic books?

>>9035947
I'm curious as well.

>>9032942
Pick up an intro level logic textbook at a local college. I've been working my way through one and it baby steps you through the very basic conventions.

File: 1479664576367.png (779KB, 647x656px) Image search: [Google]

779KB, 647x656px

>>9037085
I've been doing that as well and it's great, it's just it doesn't help me understand the scope of logic, like where linguistics, phil. langauge, or phil. math come in.

>>9037259
It is nice to have a guidebook to give you the tools, but sometimes you just need a map to know where people have been and where you need to go.

>>9037085
>>9037259
>>9038441
exactly!

>>9030593
Tfw no logician GF.

File: 1386655270231.png (24KB, 587x773px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 587x773px

>tfw you thought you understood the tractatus pretty well but then you go to look up a clarification of what wittgenstein means by "object" and find that you've been misinterpreting logical atomism at a fundamental level this whole time

hold me /lit/

>>9040820
elaborate pls

>>9040829
It's really hard for me (and many scholars of the tractatus it seems) to intuitively understand what Wittgenstein meant by "elementary propositions." Every proposition breaks down to elementary props, sure, but I'm just not sure how a statement like "The cat is on the mat" can be broken down further than a logical generalization like E(x): Cx · Mx. This comes down to a matter of what W means by "objects" given that he defines elementary props as "combinations of objects" and it's clear that he doesn't mean any sort of 1:1 correspondence between nameable "things" and the logical objects treated by the TLP. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "It turns out that even apparently simple singular terms such as ‘Obama,’ ‘London,’ etc., will not be counted as “names” by the strict standards of the Tractatus since they will disappear on further analysis," but they don't elaborate on this exact point with any examples that would help me to visualize how the type of analysis proposed by W would even proceed. On one hand, you could replace "Obama" by empirical statements like "44th president of the USA who was born in Hawaii to parents..." but this type of thinking seems to go outside the type of strictly logical thought W seemed to have in mind.

I'm trying to carefully reread the Stanford article on "Wittgenstein's logical atomism," which seems pretty comprehensive, but it seems like it includes many logical concepts i've never heard of and I'm worrying that my base-level understanding of formal logic has been mistaken. If anyone has any knowledge in this area i'd be hugely grateful

>>9040915
ty

>>9040915

I needed this.

>>9040915
y not find an analytic philosophy mentor

>>9041499
because it's a delusional fantasy that keeps you going through your sad and false existence?

>>9041499
I need mentors, any suggestions?

>>9041951
look at your local university

>>9030593
van dalen's "introduction to logic" + s.c. kleene's "mathematical logic"

start with these 2. make sure to thoroughly understand the classical logic before moving on to predicate logic. also, make sure to *practice* deduction. you won't get far if you attempt to approach logic only from a theoretical point of view. having the mechanical skill is necessary for understanding theorems.

>>9030593
Yeah lel logic goes so deep and stretchees so wide. You could study the discipline your whole life and still only cover like 10% of the shit thats been published up to now (and presumably much more would be published before you die). It basically divides into sub-areas in the respective fields of philosophy, linguistics, computer science, and mathematics.

You've got stuff like modal logics, temporal logic, etc. (philosophy); montague grammar, categorial grammar, and generative semantics (which one might not be completely inclined to call a logic, but its pretty similar) (linguistics); formal language theory, automata theory, lambda calculus, theory of recursive functions, etc. (computer science), and classical predicate calculus, model theory, proof theory, set theory, category theory, topos theory (mathematics)

All of which are either explicitly logical formalism, or are otherwise extremely relevant to logic and/or should be viewed as extensions of the classical discipline of logic. And trust me this is only the beginning.

File: FB_IMG_1478677652982.jpg (29KB, 945x640px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 945x640px

>>9030593
L. T. F. Gamut LOGIC, LANGUAGE, AND MEANING VOLUME I; Introduction to Logic, and
L. T. F. Gamut LOGIC, LANGUAGE, AND MEANING VOLUME II; Intensional Logic and Logical Grammar.
I just searched the titles and got pdfs.
I also like flicking through Euclid's Elements.

>>9044197
Anywhere else? My university professors haven't been that helpful so far.

>>9045625
thanks.

>>9047893
this.

>>9040915
Didn't he have some thing about tautologies being the building blocks.
And from what I remember it's almost identical to learning about pointers in computers, ie. you actually can't explain them properly you just need to get it and then you'll understand.

>>9040915
>"44th president of the USA who was born in Hawaii to parents..."
there is nothing empirical about this, do not be such a rationalist

>>9045625
>general historical treatments of the genesis and epistemological-ontological status of Aristotelian, medieval, and pre-Fregean logic.
what are some examples?

>>9048183
>Obama
>Born in Hawaii
Nice joke.