I want to get into logic.I've been researching set theory. Apparently, Bertrand Russell considered Aristotelian logic a waste of time if you want to learn logic. So, what authors and books do you recommend for studying logic?
>>25311314
>>25311314just read wittgenstein and end your studies
>>25311314.
>>25311314Study Kant's table of judgements and you are set
>>25311334Croce was a Hegel fanboy. Better stick with the real deal. Also Hegel is white compared to the pasta man
>>25311314Introduction to Mathematical Logic by Eliot Mendelson
>>25311314Tarski and boole definitely. Also badiou’s ‘being and event’ for more stuff on set theory
the anons recommending Kant are embarrassing, genuinely
>>25313159kant is kino. transcendental logic is important.
>25311327>25311315for a kant and hegel reader he surely has a lot of free time away of study to post.>>25313159it's one drooling retard that approaches philosophy as if it were discussion on the star wars movies
>>25313172it has nothing to do with logic
>>25313185it literally does. try reading it some time. >I would mention that in [the Science of Logic] I frequently refer to the Kantian philosophy (which to many may seem superfluous) because whatever may be said, both in this work and elsewhere, about the precise character of this philosophy and about particular parts of its exposition, it constitutes the base and the starting point of recent German philosophy and that its merit remains unaffected by whatever faults may be found in it. The reason too why reference must often be made to it in the objective logic is that it enters into detailed consideration of important, more specific aspects of logic, whereas later philosophical works have paid little attention to these and in some instances have only displayed a crude — not unavenged — contempt for them.
>>25313179>as if it were discussion on the star wars movieswas this supposed to be a burn?
>>25313191>its wrong and it isnt Kantian because it just isnt, okayhe failed to refute Hume lol
epistemology for retards by Robert Martin and Peter Kreeft's Socratic logic
>>25313159literally all philosophical logicians arethe whole field got raped once science divorced it
>>25311314Go nuts oafhttps://courses.lumenlearning.com/frontrange-mathforliberalartscorequisite1/You're not going to follow through but I encourage you to take a shot
>>25313196wtf are you talking about? kant definitively refuted Hume.
>>25311314Aristotle.Then Euclid.
>>25313185rote memorization kiddy go and play with your plug and chug formula somewhere else
>>25313201>once science divorced it>science>t. doesn't know
>>25311314Quine - From a Logical Point of View
>>25311314You can tell none of the anons in this thread know anything about contemporary formal logics because they're suggesting anything that has the word "logic" in the title as that's the best they've got. Get yourself a logic textbook or something on propositional and predicate and quantificational logic and start there. Endless choices exist. There's so many advanced logics after that though.
>>25314319I negate you
>>25314324Category mistake. Syntax error.
>>25311314symbolic logic by langer or copi
>>25311314The Greeks.
>>25313726Kant failed to prove that the categories were necessary. So the Humeans could simply dismiss them as contingent, which undermines Kant's entire theory.
>>25314319This, lel
>>25313781>>25314968This
>>25311314The recommendations in this thread are piss poor. Wtf. If you want to learn about modern formal logic then get the CUP Introduction to Formal Logic or something like that. Then there are more advanced ones you can learn. I liked Modal Logic for Philosophers for example.
