anyone read these logic books?

[musketjr]

i want to buy one of these three. recommendation?

the use of reason by Emmet
straight and crooked thinking by Thouless (looks best to me)
thinking about thinking by Flew

[Laurence Drake]

Are you actually interested in formal logic or just getting better at making arguments?

I think Suppes' Introduction to Logic is the classic one, but if it's not formal logic that you're asking about then literally any academic book will help you get better at reasoning logically.

[musketjr]

i decided against formal logic. academic rubbish. one of these three because they were recommend by glanville williams but in no order of preference. i like making decisions like this partly on the basis of recommendations by people you know have good judgement. oh well, i'll get thouless's

since i made a book thread, feel free to recommend other stuff in general. such as what you had in mind with interesting philosophy from the past 50 years.

[Laurence Drake]

I'd say formal logic is probably less rubbish-y than the self-help style of advice that you'll find in those other books.

Parfit's Reasons and Persons and Nagel's Mortal Questions are all good starting points, but honestly, I don't think books alone will help you develop a good understanding. If you really want to get into philosophy I'd suggest taking a course in the subject. You'll learn a lot more things a lot more quickly through textbook readings and class discussions than you would through primary source material.

[musketjr]

jesus christ.

the arrogance of someone who expresses himself like this:

I actually don't think determinism is important. Even if determinism was true, it wouldn't guarantee the existence of exceptionless natural laws, or the possibility of prediction/explanation in the sciences, at least under a deductive-nomological account of causation. The most interesting consequence of this is found in theories that incorporate some principle of mental anomalism (which I honestly couldn't explain any better than this article does). A correct theory of anomalous monism would practically undermine the claim that psychology could ever amount to a predictive science, even supposing determinism were true.

this terribly expressed jargon word salad and you think you have any insight into philosophy or forming arguments

move along.

offer is open to other people to recommend books in general. i'm in a temporary buying books spree.

[deleted_user0]

Rofl.

[deleted_user]

Has anyone read Meditations by Descartes?

[Laurence Drake]

lol

[kami_ryu]

-- deleted post --

[Dolan]

Has anyone read Meditations by Descartes?

1

It's a short but useful book. You could read it as an exercise.

[deleted_user]

lol

what

[Jaeger]

What's wrong with formal logic?

[XeeleeFlower]

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

One of the best books I have ever read.

Sorry for hijacking, but you did say "books in general" and I love to share Stephen Baxter's work with people.

[deleted_user]

So that's where xeelee comes from

[Goodspeed]

jesus christ.

the arrogance of someone who expresses himself like this:

I actually don't think determinism is important. Even if determinism was true, it wouldn't guarantee the existence of exceptionless natural laws, or the possibility of prediction/explanation in the sciences, at least under a deductive-nomological account of causation. The most interesting consequence of this is found in theories that incorporate some principle of mental anomalism (which I honestly couldn't explain any better than this article does). A correct theory of anomalous monism would practically undermine the claim that psychology could ever amount to a predictive science, even supposing determinism were true.

this terribly expressed jargon word salad and you think you have any insight into philosophy or forming arguments

move along.

offer is open to other people to recommend books in general. i'm in a temporary buying books spree.

Woah?

[musketjr]

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

One of the best books I have ever read.

Sorry for hijacking, but you did say "books in general" and I love to share Stephen Baxter's work with people.

looks interesting. i have too much to read this summer but i will probably get that for next summer. have you read metamorphosis of prime intellect?

[XeeleeFlower]

No, I haven't, but it sounds really great! I'm going to have to check that out. Thanks!

[musketjr]

Has anyone read Meditations by Descartes?

1

It's a short but useful book. You could read it as an exercise.

you should contribute more. you're obviously well read

[gibson]

reading

[Laurence Drake]

Girl: "You cheated on me last night!"
Philosophy Student: "No I didn't! It's not possible!"
Girl: "What are you talking about? I found the texts on your phone!"
Philosophy Student: "Recall that in modal logic some sentence φ is possible at the actual world @ just in case there is at least one world accessible from the actual world @ such that φ is true in that world. The sentence "I cheated on you" is only true in the past, and the past is not accessible from the present, on pain of contradiction via the classical paradoxes of backwards time travel. Since a sentence φ which is only true in the past is not accessible from the present actual world @, there can be no world accessible from @ in which φ is true, meaning it is not possible that φ. So it is impossible that I cheated on you."

[kami_ryu]

-- deleted post --

[Jam]

But there is no world accessible from the present in which they were dating in the first place so he can't get dumped.