Absolutely! I love this book. There's a lot of logic textbooks out there, even very traditional ones, but I know of none that approaches this level of, so to speak, "funness."
Would you recommend this book to be read after or before the art of reasoning by kelley (introductory book you recommended in one of your videos). I got very intrigued by this book but I also would definitely like to absorb the most amount of information possible so what according to you would be a good order? Your response would mean a great deal to me as I'm struggling to start logic & am quite interested in philosophy as well. I'm studying to become a data scientist & these I'm hoping can act as an escape for me away from computers for a while. Thank you if you read my comment till the end.
In some ways it’s apples versus oranges. Peter Kreeft’s book is a traditional logic book. David Kelley’s book is a modern logic book. They just have a different approach and focus in on different content, even though there’s obvious overlap. You can read either in whatever order perfectly well. Nonetheless, if you’re sure you want to read both, then there’s an argument to be had to read Kreeft first because his book will ground you in traditional logic to then open you up to modern logic. Kreeft’s book is not on propositional logic or predicate logic. Those are covered in Kelley’s book. On the other hand, while both cover so-called “categorical logic,” Kreeft will cover this traditional logic in a much more robust way. “Categorical logic” is basically traditional Scholastic logic but in a very watered-down format. Also note that Kreeft does have critical things to say about modern logic. While I think he goes a bit too far in criticisms, Kreeft, in the big picture of things, is right (in my view). Also, consider checking out my website: amateurlogician.com/trivium-logic/ I hope this helps!
@@AmateurLogician Very interesting! This is exactly what I needed, thank you for explaining in detail. I'm picking up socratic logic then to start with my journey in logic & philosophy. Also you recommended Philosopher's toolkit somewhere I don't remember for philosophy so maybe I'll also pick that up in near future. Btw I have checked out your website & it's really an awesome resource, it shows that you've put in huge amounts of time & attention to detail. Looking forward to more of your videos, keep doing amazing work!
What books do you recommend to learn logic? And what order? If my goal is to be a peer to people like Russell or Quine or kripke, what books do recommend?
You can study logic in a more-or-less linear progression, but I've always jumped about into different areas or branches. The Logicist Project, as you may know, ultimately failed with Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. The irony is that Russell's Paradox destroyed Frege's system, and Godel's Incompleteness Theorem destroyed Russell's and White's. You could take a more historical approach. But, first, read some "standard" college textbooks in metalogic and modal logic. Then read Frege's books, Russell's, Quine's, Kripke's, etc.
Well, sometimes I think Peter Kreeft (and editor Trent Dougherty) go too far in their criticism of mathematical logic, but they are not far from the truth. Paradoxes of material implication are mentioned, for example. Still, one thing all logicians can agree on is this: mathematical-symbolic logic doesn't capture all forms of natural language argumentation out there. Mathematical logics are just models, so to speak. There are limits to what those models can do. Also, what takes priority: natural language and reasoning or symbolic language and reasoning? What should accommodate itself to what? Bertrand Russell would answer one way, someone like Peter Kreeft would answer another way.
@@AmateurLogician great points. If I may generalize, natural language is like classical mechanics: it works on the day to day level but doesn’t fare well at the sub atomic level.
Completely agree. This book is outstanding. Highly recommend it.
Absolutely! I love this book. There's a lot of logic textbooks out there, even very traditional ones, but I know of none that approaches this level of, so to speak, "funness."
Would you recommend this book to be read after or before the art of reasoning by kelley (introductory book you recommended in one of your videos). I got very intrigued by this book but I also would definitely like to absorb the most amount of information possible so what according to you would be a good order?
Your response would mean a great deal to me as I'm struggling to start logic & am quite interested in philosophy as well. I'm studying to become a data scientist & these I'm hoping can act as an escape for me away from computers for a while.
Thank you if you read my comment till the end.
In some ways it’s apples versus oranges. Peter Kreeft’s book is a traditional logic book. David Kelley’s book is a modern logic book. They just have a different approach and focus in on different content, even though there’s obvious overlap.
You can read either in whatever order perfectly well. Nonetheless, if you’re sure you want to read both, then there’s an argument to be had to read Kreeft first because his book will ground you in traditional logic to then open you up to modern logic.
Kreeft’s book is not on propositional logic or predicate logic. Those are covered in Kelley’s book. On the other hand, while both cover so-called “categorical logic,” Kreeft will cover this traditional logic in a much more robust way.
“Categorical logic” is basically traditional Scholastic logic but in a very watered-down format.
Also note that Kreeft does have critical things to say about modern logic. While I think he goes a bit too far in criticisms, Kreeft, in the big picture of things, is right (in my view).
Also, consider checking out my website: amateurlogician.com/trivium-logic/
I hope this helps!
@@AmateurLogician Very interesting! This is exactly what I needed, thank you for explaining in detail. I'm picking up socratic logic then to start with my journey in logic & philosophy.
Also you recommended Philosopher's toolkit somewhere I don't remember for philosophy so maybe I'll also pick that up in near future.
Btw I have checked out your website & it's really an awesome resource, it shows that you've put in huge amounts of time & attention to detail. Looking forward to more of your videos, keep doing amazing work!
What books do you recommend to learn logic? And what order?
If my goal is to be a peer to people like Russell or Quine or kripke, what books do recommend?
You can study logic in a more-or-less linear progression, but I've always jumped about into different areas or branches. The Logicist Project, as you may know, ultimately failed with Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. The irony is that Russell's Paradox destroyed Frege's system, and Godel's Incompleteness Theorem destroyed Russell's and White's.
You could take a more historical approach. But, first, read some "standard" college textbooks in metalogic and modal logic. Then read Frege's books, Russell's, Quine's, Kripke's, etc.
What are the problems with mathematical logic that the author refers to?
Well, sometimes I think Peter Kreeft (and editor Trent Dougherty) go too far in their criticism of mathematical logic, but they are not far from the truth.
Paradoxes of material implication are mentioned, for example.
Still, one thing all logicians can agree on is this: mathematical-symbolic logic doesn't capture all forms of natural language argumentation out there. Mathematical logics are just models, so to speak. There are limits to what those models can do.
Also, what takes priority: natural language and reasoning or symbolic language and reasoning? What should accommodate itself to what? Bertrand Russell would answer one way, someone like Peter Kreeft would answer another way.
@@AmateurLogician great points. If I may generalize, natural language is like classical mechanics: it works on the day to day level but doesn’t fare well at the sub atomic level.