 |
|
|
| |
| 1. | Re: Formal Logic |
|
|
|
In response to John's note, I think it would be hard to understand no less appreciate, say Quine, "to be is to be the value of a variable", or Davidson on causality and events, the slingshot, or Kripke on the necessity of identity, or on the necessity of some a posteriori truths, without at least a solid knowledge of a text such as Quine's Methods, or the first half of Copi's Symbolic Logic. Furthermore, elementary reasoning such as if p implies q then the necessity of the former implies the necessity of the latter, or simply modus tollens, it seems to me, may not be at a philosopher's fingertips without a solid grounding in formal logic. I was wondering how much?
|
|
| |
------Original Message------
Most philosophers need very little formal logic.I would say very few need any symbolic logic. I would add that almost none need to know the basics of mathematical logic: soundness and completeness of first-order logic.And none need to be indoctrinated into the latest fashions and jargon. But regard these words as a tentative opening of a dialogue.
------------------------------
John Corcoran
Bradenton FL
------------------------------ |
|
| 2. | Re: Formal Logic |
|
|
|
It seems to me that John Corcoran has answered the question "How much formal logic is essential for a philosopher to master?" while Alex Blum's reply to John's answer assumes that the question was "How much formal logic is essential for a philosopher with a concentration in a central area of analytic philosophy to master?"
For a philosopher who specializes in a historical figure or period from before the 20th century, outside of the areas of logic and the philosophy of mathematics, I would say that a basic knowledge of syllogistic is essential while a mastery of modern predicate logic is not.
------------------------------
Miles Rind
Adjunct
Boston College Philosophy Department
Cambridge MA
------------------------------ |
|
| |
| ------------------------------------------- |
|
|
Original Message:
Sent: 01-20-2019 03:41
From: Alex Blum
Subject: Formal Logic
In response to John's note, I think it would be hard to understand no less appreciate, say Quine, "to be is to be the value of a variable", or Davidson on causality and events, the slingshot, or Kripke on the necessity of identity, or on the necessity of some a posteriori truths, without at least a solid knowledge of a text such as Quine's Methods, or the first half of Copi's Symbolic Logic. Furthermore, elementary reasoning such as if p implies q then the necessity of the former implies the necessity of the latter, or simply modus tollens, it seems to me, may not be at a philosopher's fingertips without a solid grounding in formal logic. I was wondering how much?
Original Message------
Most philosophers need very little formal logic.I would say very few need any symbolic logic. I would add that almost none need to know the basics of mathematical logic: soundness and completeness of first-order logic.And none need to be indoctrinated into the latest fashions and jargon. But regard these words as a tentative opening of a dialogue.
------------------------------
John Corcoran
Bradenton FL
------------------------------ |
|
| 3. | Re: The value of philosophy |
|
|
|
This is a good question. I don't mean to be glib by saying that the best answer is, I think, to find ways for people who have never done philosophy to do philosophy. The more sophisticated answer is that we find ways to do philosophy wherever and with whomever we are, when our intention is to engage these others in philosophy. This involves, I think, some aesthetic and educational imagination. Children can do philosophy. And an op-ed can be philosophical. At the same time, people can propound philosophy unphilosophically. Many of the popularizations of philosophy fall afoul of this problem; but so do many technical academic works that purport to be philosophical. The key, I think, is the adverbial relation -- engaging "philosophically." What is that relation?
As a starter, I think one thing to say is that engaging philosophically must be formed and constrained by the pursuit of wisdom. Ironically, however, wisdom is an under-analyzed concept in contemporary academic philosophy, and it is not central to academic philosophical training. My view is that the main problem that surrounds the power of your question comes from that irony. How can a discipline devoted to the love of wisdom be so far removed from critically and explicitly exploring what wisdom is and how we can develop it? There may be many aesthetic and pedagogical changes called for if we were to actually pursue wisdom.
I gesture to some of these issues in a Blog of the APA post and also in a brief essay on a community-based discussion group.
------------------------------
Jeremy Bendik-Keymer
Beamer-Schneider Professor in Ethics
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland OH
------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 01-13-2019 16:52
From: Natalie Fletcher
Subject: The value of philosophy
How can we help non-philosophically trained people understand and appreciate the value of philosophy both in the academy and in the world at large?
------------------------------
Natalie Fletcher
Concordia University
Montreal QC
------------------------------ |
|
| |
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment