This site is full of people who erroneously believe that they can think logically without studying a single page of logic.
which came first, logical thinking or a single page of logic to study?
>>25362012>I can reinvent the wheel because I'm just that smart.Go ahead and try.Also, thanks for proving my point, ignoramus. Brainwashed uneducated unculture swine.
>>25362006logic is good for analysis and construction but not really good for generating original or interesting ideas. you're never gonna be at a loss for knowing logic but it won't necessarily give you everything you want. and it also depends on other people being logical anyway
>>25362035I'm not here to debate retards so stfu.
>>25362053ok, but you will be forced to agree that a logical is an externalist thing and not an internalist thing because the mind's machinations are predominantly spontaneous. and if something is externalist it can very well disagree with temperament or circumstance
>>25362060a logical approach* or alternatively just *logic*
>>25362006Once I learned all logic ultimately is flawed by either 1) arbitrary truth 2) infinite regression 3) circular I stopped caring about logic
I have a degree in mathematics and that requires significant development of argumentation by deductive logic. It is handy to be aware of certain tricks of the trade like contraposition (if A then B = if not B then not A). However, these are also completely intuitive and most people are aware of them and use them in their thinking even without being aware of their form in general propositional logic. More complex applications of logic such as Boolean Algebra are useful for solving mathematical problems, but have no application whatever in the course of a standard human argument developed in sentences. It is a rather niche area of study of interest to certain fields like computer science and math. It is completely unnecessary for general readers or even specialists in most regions of philosophy to study this material. I think you are enamored with the idea of proof, concreteness, exactness etc. and you have not spent enough time realizing how distant the worlds of human sensation and figurative language are from mere logic. You should also study the history of Russell/Whitehead PM, the quest for axiomatization of mathematics in the 20th century, and the ultimate disillusionment with that approach following Godel. Logic is not the end all be all, it's not that useful, it does not demonstrate or signify any kind of higher intelligence, and it is by no means so bullet-proof as you suspect.
>>25362064might be going too far in the other direction there. if there WAS an abstracted (or i guess concrete from this perspective) conjunction (or negation or quantifier or whatever) then it would be genuinely useful for a linguistic and creative methodology
>>25362060Again, I'm not here to debate freestyled homecooked crackpipe opinions, ie opinions on logic by people who haven't studied any logic.
>>25362105why are you here?
>>25362072brainwashed retard
>>25362006..may you share your recs?
>>25362118https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watthttps://archive.org/details/artoflogicalthin00atkihttps://archive.org/details/easylessonsonrea00whathttps://archive.org/details/the-trivium-the-liberal-arts-of-logic-grammar-and-rhetoric-sister-miriam-joseph
Jokes on you, I learned formal logic during my formative years because I was homeschooled for a bit and my mom thought it was a good idea. A idea she regretted because I became a annoying "em actually" smarty pants for a few months after. Eventually I got out of that phase thankfully and now it's just something of a inside joke in the family.
>>25362105But you haven't studied any logic, evident in your weak facility with arguments in every thread you where you get fangirlish over the Trivium (which you haven't absorbed) or Euclid (who you study like a retard). Seriously. Go ahead and explain in your own words the three laws of logic.
>>25362121Have you actually read any of these
https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watthttps://archive.org/details/logick_2507_librivoxhttps://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWWjNDMbkdSl8Go4uRLZfGQnnFe8gMSOo
>>25362006Oh please, I’m literally a Professor of Logic down at the University of Science.Don’t believe me? Let me show you with a simple example, then. Answer me this: do you own a dog house?
>>25362053Once I finish reading this single page of logic might I please think logically?
