I was wondering if there's such a thing. I've heard there's an analytical Thomism and such scholars before all should know about this matter. Particularly, I want to know if there have been attempts to present Aristotelian (syllogistic) logic in a pure formal and symbolic fashion, as a way to "compete" with modern first-order logic.

So I was listening to partially examined life ep. 135. At about 52 minutes they read a quote by hegel that says that "the logic of mere understanding (I assume formal logic) is evolved in speculative logic and can and will be elicited from it by the simple process of omitting the dialectical and reasonable element". The quote makes it sound that Hegelian logic is the next stage of Aristotelian logic, and somehow the latter is contained and can be derived from the former. I just can't wrap my head around it.

Hegelian logic seems to be based on many assumptions (like the world spirit) that to me, make it quite different. Maybe it has to do with being or the spirit as kind of a superclass to all things, but even the form of rising contradictions from within a system of knowledge and eventual sublation of that system don't seem to me like any formal logic I know. It seems to be based on assumptions (that the negation of the system mist arise from the system itself) whereas Hegel talks like this dialectical form of thinking is the basis of all knowledge.

I just started learning about hegel, reading the phenomenology and listening to these podcasts about him, so I may be very very wrong on everything I know about Hegel.

So my question is, how can you get Aristotelian logic from Hegelian?

I've heard that Frege was able to resolve some paradoxes of Aristotelian logic that had gone unresolved for hundreds or thousands of years. Does anyone have any examples? Or can you suggest any articles I could read that would answer this question. I was able to find some discussion of the advantages of Frege's logic over Aristotelian logic, but I haven't managed to find any specific paradoxes of Aristotelian logic that philosophers struggled over.

>My general thoughts on the subject, you are free to speak your mind in any way possible. criticize, critic, argue - whatever goes. Have a nice read :)

It is clear that the form of computing you have now is not the ultimate stage of the evolution of computer technology. Quantum computing as it is popularly called is a field that has some potential, but it does not have a real potential with the current binary computing system. It is necessary to step up to a more advanced form of computing where you do not have just on and off signals, but a variety of signals of, so to speak, gradations in between on and off.

You may say, is not it contradictory that something can be both on and off, but the reason why you think so is because scientific inquiry has been based on Aristotelian thinking. Aristotelian logic says that a statement can be true or it can be untrue, but it cannot be both true and untrue at the same time. The reality is that this is a very limited perspective because you are creating a system where your understanding of reality has to be reduced to statements that can be answered with a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’, a ‘true’ or ‘untrue’, an ‘on’ or ‘off’.

What has created the entire universe with all of the multiplicity you see? Current computing is based on the idea that by combining the two signals - on and off - in a sequence, you can encode all possible information. This is a complete fallacy. You can only encode the kind of information that can be expressed in an “on and off” binary mindset. Nature is not binary. Human Beings do not think naturally in binary system. The universe is not either "on" fully in its present state or "off". The Big Bang did not instantly manifest the current physical universe. Everything has been an evolution. What is clear is that this has happened through an infinite variety of the combination of various elements that have even evolved over time so that there are more elements today than there were at the time of what scientists call the Big Bang event, not that I am endorsing that particular philosophy and theory.

You need to recognize here that for quantum computing to reach its full potential, people need to be able to think beyond the binary mindset. There will not be a real breakthrough before these other signals could be defined beyond 0 and 1. Even with classical computing this mindset is limiting current computer development, as an example, by now industry are fully capable to develop a ternar

What is the difference between "people who are hungry eat apples" and "people who eat apples are hungry"? Or is there no difference? A little confused.

In this SEP article, it mentions that Aristotle's logic "is not always the same thing" as what has been called "Aristotelian logic". Presumably the author in using "Aristotelian logic" to refer to the adherents of Traditional logic that were around during the rise of formal logic. What, though, is the difference between Traditional logic and Aristotelian logic?

Is 'Traditional logic' being used as a synonym for 'Port Royal logic' in this context, or is this something separate from both? And if it is, what are the relevant differences?

I have started reading Anthony Kenny’s A new History Of Western Philosophy, and am still getting the grasp of philosophy itself, and some of the disciplines of it I do not understand why it is important and why we would need to conclude an answer for it, such as propositional logic and what use it would be to know it.

Also, it seems that some disciplines are so ambiguous that after thousands of years have not come to a conclusion, so why argue on a topic that will never have a complete and definitive answer?

Recently, a friend forwarded me a paper called 'The Semantics of Good and Evil', written by Robert Anton Wilson. I noticed something said in this paper: "To proceed from philosophical kindergarten to graduate school in one step, consider this more advanced illustration: between 1900 and c. 1926, quantum physicists discovered that certain Aristotelian “laws of thought” simply do not apply to the sub-atomic level". I would like to hear some thoughts on this statement, however, ultimately I'd like to better understand whether quantum theory violates Aristotelian laws of logic.

Hello, I've been struggling answering the question: Examine the following argument for validity by the Venn Diagram method. If possible, identify any fallacies that might be present in the translation you adopt. Be sure to translate propositions so that they conform to the form for categorical propositions. Use appropriate single letters for class terms and supply algebraic notation.

     All except prisoners may vote, so, since every prisoner is untrustworthy, only trustworthy people may vote. (Aristotelian)

...So, I understand that the "all except" phrase is used to express conjunctions. So I need to translate 'No P is V' as well as 'All non-P is V' into one categorical syllogsim that I am able to sketch in a Venn Diagram. I've been trying to tackle this problem for hours and have tried to research what i need to do with this compound that will correctly fit into my argument. I realize I am probably bad at explaining this. I have been working from the textbook 'Introduction to Logic, Fourteenth Edition' by Copi.

I am having a hard time digging up any modernish sources on Aristotelian logic. Other than Kreeft’s Socratic Logic textbook it has been a slow grind finding anything in the journal databases or otherwise on the contemporary use of Socratic logic. I know that Socratic logic has largely fell out of favor for symbolic logic but I am using Aristotle’s traditional way of defining essential and non-essential properties for some academic writing.

Anyone have any good peer-reviewed sources or places I can look on the matter?

I need your help /r/askphilosophy! I have some work to do, where I have to analyze the difference between the aristotelian and stoic logic. I know that the aristotlian logic is syllogistic but what is the stoic logic in particular? Anyone can lend me a hand or got some clues? I would be very thankful!

A guy walking down the street met his friend. The friend was reading a book.
Guy: "What are you reading?"
Friend: "It's about Aristotelian logic. Do you know what is that?"
Guy: "Not really."
Friend: "What do you have there with you?" - pointing to the shopping bags.
Guy: "Well, fish food, some kids toys..."
Friend: "Okay, since you bought fish food, by logic I may conclude you have an aquarium with fishes. Since you also bought toys I may concluse you also have a child who may feed the fish. The most important is that since you have kids you had sex with a woman and I can conclude you are straight."
Guy: "Makes sense."
Friend: "This is logic."
Amazed by logic, the guy went to the bookstore and bought a book on Aristotelian logic. After that he met another friend and was asked:
Another friend: "Hey, what you're reading?"
Guy: "It is called Aristotelian logic. You know what is that?"
Another friend: "No."
Guy: "Great. Let me explain you. Do you have fish food?"
Another friend: "No."
Guy: "So you are gay."

E-Prime

Disallowed words

be
being
been
am
is; isn't
are; aren't
was; wasn't
were; weren't
Contractions formed from a pronoun and a form of to be:
    I'm
    you're; we're; they're
    he's; she's; it's
    there's; here's
    where's; how's; what's; who's
    that's
E-Prime likewise prohibits contractions of to be found in nonstandard dialects of English, such as the following:
    ain't
    hain't (when derived from ain't rather than haven't)
    whatcha (derived from what are you)
    yer (when derived from you are rather than your)

Allowed words

E-prime does not prohibit the following words, because they do not derive from forms of to be. Some of these serve similar grammatical functions (see auxiliary verbs).

become;
has; have; having; had (I've; you've)
do; does; doing; did
can; could
will; would (they'd)
shall; should
ought
may; might; must
remain
equal

Recommended Book List:

• Alfred Korzybski: Science and Sanity, Manhood of Humanity

• Robert Anton Wilson: Quantum Psychology

Recommended sites:

• Institute of General Semantics
• Alfred Korzybski

EDIT: Adding recommended books

EDIT2: Added recommended sites

Recently I got quite interested in the history of logic, and especially with the big guy himself. I've read the SEP articles on Aristotle's logic and managed to get a copy of Lukasiewicz' book on the syllogistic which I will eventually read, but I thought I would ask for pointers here just in case anyone who knows their stuff could point me in a good direction for resources. I'm really looking for any good books/online resources about 'old logic' in general (stoic logic, medieval logic, Leibniz, whatever) and especially on Aristotle's logic. I've a fairly good knowledge of modern logic, but I'm a complete novice here, so any help would be appreciated.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781350043558

https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/the-aftermath-of-syllogism-aristotelian-logical-argument-from-avicenna- to-hegel/

ISBN: 978-1-3500-4354-1

Thanks in advance.

I've had people telling me to quit alcohol and I have even considered it myself but why should I? It doesn't matter anyway. Let me ruin my life.

If life has no meaning, everything is useless,

What keeps you going? What makes you get out of that bed and go through the day?

For instance, I often read books by Emil Cioran because he is so depressed about everything that reading him makes me accept the non-sense of life. In the past, reading Schopenhauer helped me too. These philosophers have such a little interest in life that I just feel better after reading them.

Here is a video, about entering the universe (it uses imagination and horror to convey emotions about the vulnerability we all are at stakes with, when being born; of course, it is a bit nonsensical, but for the sake—of—the message, which is for the unpopular notion, that the universe, is cold, brutal, uncaring, independent of ultimate reason [not observation], and meaningless): https://youtu.be/d3Gj8VLeKbM?t=59

"What's the point, how can you get up in the morning?"

Well, it turns out that the universe is independent of reason (and not observation). You can get up, eat food, pet your cat, play games, go on walks, laugh, cry, etc., all for no reason—all the same—you can, suffer, for no reason. It's the ego that makes this hard to accept, because it doesn't understand "deserve" having nothing to do with it. It needs a sense of purpose to be fulfilled, and in this meaningless, visceral stew—it will—create its reason, through judgment, and project what it thinks "ought not" and "ought to be".

Yeah, this post doesn't have a "credible link", because it's philosophical in nature. What is called a "fact" is also philosophical in nature. This coincidentally is an unpopular opinion or "fact". It turns out the universe "loves" contradiction too. It doesn't, necessarily, obey reason—by the very fact—of it being here, now.

You're free not to make sense: The freedom to not make any sense, is also a "sense" in its own, which has its—own—context, and vice-versa. So whatever it is, what it is can always be understood—unless—it is not anything, at all, in which case we wouldn't be talking about "it".

Extra: "object permanence" asserts independence of observation

this is actually a philosophical statement, because you cannot verify what is beyond observation, since this is all you are limited to

philosophy is metacognition to me

how we think is also why we think

exploring what underlies a premise

for example can show the motivation

behind its asserters and or assertions

of course, there is also belief and speculation

you can choose to go down this avenue, instead

but to the believer, it's more than that

what they are convinced of, would be undone,

if they saw that for what it is

so the cycle of judgment and projection,

continue onwards, unconsiously,

until awareness, can slip in, consciously

When everything is meaningless then logically everything is epistemological equal: so just choose anything--religion science it does not matter

Magister colin leslie dean the only modern Renaissance man with 9 degrees including 4 masters: B,Sc, BA, B.Litt(Hons), MA, B.Litt(Hons), MA, MA (Psychoanalytic studies), Master of Psychoanalytic studies, Grad Cert (Literary studies)

He is Australia's leading erotic poet: poetry is for free in pdf

All things are possible

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/All-things-are-possible.pdf

-or

https://www.scribd.com/document/324037705/All-Things-Are-Possible-philosophy

I am trying to revert into faith, and have had major qualms with understanding the validity behind sexual theology and ethics.

Aquinas was considered dangerous and controversial for his time, even by Catholics, to use Aristotle (a pagan) in his philosophical motives. Why can't the church question and evolve our understanding of sexuality when our opinions are rooted in 13th-century science that was originated from a man who used a pagan to help shape his viewpoints? Why can't we do something similarly controversial to question ethics that refuse to budge behind 13th-century theories of natural law, when many other philosophies hold just as convincing arguments and objections.
Aquinas believed in the idea of Homunculi (little people in your sperm essentially) that women receive during sex. Basically the "spilling of seed" would equate to mass abortion as if your sperm contained microscopic human beings with a soul. Augustine also essentially believed that sin was stored in the testicles and transmitted at conception. Some of these doctors of the Church had views on science and sexuality that were just obviously proven untrue. How do we decide that any part of their thinking was true and not a massive misunderstanding? This seems dangerous to place that much trust in philosophical opinions based on a select few from the 13th century and prior and hold it to unquestionable grounds that are reinforced through popes with encyclicals like Humanae Vitae or things like Theology of the Body, which essentially just expand upon understanding of sexuality through a 13th Century lens. Why do we automatically demonize questioning of doctrines like these when they are outdated with what we now understand about sexuality, human experience, and psychology and nuance. The intention of the maintenance of love makes sense perhaps in a sacramental point when procreation is required, and their thinking was influential, but a lot of the understanding about sex is just not true. This view on non-heteronormative sex being intrinsically disordered would make sense if we still believed in Homunculi, but I don't think it makes sense. The internal logic of theology should ask more questions and consider our view about relationships being exclusively heteronormative when natural law, according to Thomistic/Aristotelian theology is just not true to reality. Their thought is influential and thought-provoking, sure, but so are hundreds of other philosophers who agree or op

From the correspondence Lacan-Joyce

On 2 November 1939 Lacan wrote to Joyce:

Docteur Jacques Lacan

3 rue de Lille

Paris VI

Dear Mr Joyce,

Thank you very much for sending me your ex Work in Progress now published as Finnegans Wake. You are right, I would have never guessed its name.

Your judgement of psychoanalysis is rather harsh, though you have put forward certain compelling arguments. But this is a delicate time for me. Since 1938 I am myself a Training Analyst with The Psychoanalytic Society of Paris. The intrinsic institutional politics involved in this move are indeed very boring and probably no different from the other church, the Roman Catholic Church. Still, as you may appreciate, this is a personal letter and in it I can be more open with my thoughts than I would be otherwise.

I finished reading Finnengans Wake last night. It took me a good five weeks in which I closed myself off from the external world in the company of many dictionaries, expecting rather naively that they were going to help me understand your book. I can tell you that I read it word by word, but I will not pretend that it made any sense to me whatsoever. Nevertheless, your jouissance in writing is palpable. Would this confirm the truth of T S Eliot's, that True poetry reaches us before being understood? I find this in your Finnegans Wake.

You know, my friends, Dali, Picasso and the entire surrealist group, they are kindergarten children when compared with the enigmas in your book. Your book is an enunciation in which the enunciated cannot be found, it is an enigma made book. I plan to use it in due time, in future teachings. I was taken by your definition of what a letter is. As you so well said, it is a litter. However, if so, did you publish to show that while the letter kills, the spirit vivifies? Thus to re-create literature in order to finish it off would be the logical conclusion following on from your alliteration of letter into litter.

Finnegans Wake is a magnificent and rare yield of your thorough knowledge of Freud's Traumdeutung. Yet, in your F W there is no dreamer other than the dream itself. I wonder; is this a confusion between Freud and Jung?

As you might know, Freud was in Paris on his way to London a while ago. I didn't go to see him in part due to the effect of reading your Work in Progress in The Little Review. I was hesitant to see him because I would have taken issue on the same point

Hi again. Three weeks ago I posted about a project I'm working on. For those who haven't seen it yet:

>So, I am embarking on an interesting project. I intend to experience the best art and media humanity has to offer before I die. Namely this is all the highly notable and interesting books, plays, art, music, films, TV shows, and video games. I guess you could call it a bucket list. I've been indexing it chronologically and downloading it to an external hard drive.

I then solicited suggestions for highly notable/significant ancient and medieval literature that I was missing from an early draft of what the list would cover. I got over 100 responses; it was clear I was missing a lot. So, I pretty much started from scratch, doing multiple sweeps of any pre-Renaissance literature, and incorporated many of the suggestions I received, ranging from missing individual works to missing authors and cultures.

I should also note that in order to prevent this list from becoming unwieldly, I am limiting myself to 10,000 entries total, forcing myself to take a more deliberate and top-down approach. So far, I have 261 entries for the time span 4000 BC to 1400 AD: 12 Ancient-era, 121 Classical-era, and 128 Medieval-era works. 251 are literature, 10 are music. In other words, 2.61% of the list is Medieval era works or earlier, which seems quite reasonable to me and leaves plenty of room for more modern works spanning across more mediums.

I thought I would share what I have so far before I begin work on more modern stuff. Note that bolded entries are in the top 1,000 works, the cream of the crop, the most notable of all. If you're following along with me and don't want it to take a decade or longer to get through the whole completed list, just sticking to the bolded entries will give you a good taste too.

Ancient Era (4000 BC - 1001 BC)

I've read Hume and Kant and both perspectives are lacking.

Hume's argument can be summed up like this:

All things, except the universe, have a cause. The universe does not necessarily need a cause, since it's beyond our experience. <--Major problem with this is that it's borderline circular and technically dodges the question. In other words, Hume's argument is, "We don't know what we can't know, and if we can't know it intuitively, we must learn it factually. We don't have any way to experience the creation of the universe factually, so the creation of the universe does not need a first cause - all it needs is to have existed." This is fine...if we had evidence the universe was infinite. However, evidence points to the fact that the universe had a distinct beginning (a "time 0" as it were), so his premise that we can't know the universe came into existence factually is false, because we can know it came into existence.

Kant's perspective is related and similar, actually was specifically applied because of Hume (Kant does not like Hume's perspective at all). Since we can't know how the universe was created, we can't use causality as a basis for argument. This is arbitrary, however. In other words, Kant's argument is "We can never know, so it's irrelevant." What's interesting about this perspective is that it dodges the question outright and then applies an arbitrary rule that says "if we can never know the answer, we can never use the answer to ask a question."

Kant's perspective is reasonable insofar that the "answer" is God. However, it ignores the fact we can start from a question, "How did the universe come about?" And still apply Aristotelian principles to discover the answer. This however, forms the crux of the debate: what's the answer, since we cannot "prove" God was the first cause? Hume and Kant both, ironically, offer answers to it: through human experience and connecting what we experience to the logic applied. So, for example, I experience and see a universe that has millions of "design elements" in place. Things that, had they been off by a teensy bit, would have made the "hows" of the Big Bang physically impossible. It's more or less the "watchmaker" argument. The criticisms of the "watchmaker" argument generally fall into two broad categories: "Arguments against the argument" and "Arguments against the inference." All the arguments against the inference are mostly sound (Hume's criticism of the Watchmaker analogy is that even if it d

Surely any coherent worldview must adhere to basic Aristotelian principles like the law of excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction. So how can two things that make mutually exclusive claims be equally true or valid? At most one can be true and the other false. Why insist on the idea that they are all equally valid or true when this is violating the most fundamental principle of logic.

there was confusion about this so I am explaining to the best of my ability anyone who reads more Marx and Hegel chime in

Dialectics, in the Hegelian (and as a result Marxist) sense is a way to model the relationship between ideas and the historical process (Marx and Hegel have opposite conceptions along the same framework). Luna Oi did not demonstrate how her example in Newtownian mechanics is meant to illustrate dialectical principles - I will by contrasting the dialectical view with Aristotelian cause and effect, in this case, a hammer striking a nail:

• In Aristotle's view: the hammer exacts a force on the nail and causes it to bend and push inward
• in Hegel's view: the hammer and nail exact equal and opposite forces on one another, but in this conflict arises a contradiction: the nail has nowhere to go - this contradiction naturally must be eliminated to bring the system back to homeostasis - and this happens by the nail bending, which is caused in this sense, equally by the force of the hammer and the rigidity of the nail. A conflict of opposing identities has been sublated in a way that makes them both irrelevant, and has visible markers of the history of conflict in this synthesis.

How this relates to history and practical application:

In the materialist view of history, the historical process is characterized by class conflict. What do marxists mean by this ? do we mean that all conflicts are secretly a class conflict, despite what their participants claim ? do we mean that other stuff has happened but the only important things are class conflict ? No, the conception is that classes are the fundamental actors in the historical process that reproduces society; i.e conflict between classes mutually determine the classes themselves, and are mutually determining and determined by the outside society in the same way. The society that they reproduce is the one that sublates their conflict to return to homeostasis, and has visible markers of the history of conflicts that created it - just as in our example before. Applying dialectical materialism to the theory of history is about identifying the contradictions in historical phenomena (like Marx did with capitalism) and building logical constructions of these to both explain the dynamics of the past - and notably build a theoretical framework for speculating on the sublation of currently contending historical forces (this is what socialism is).

"Suddenly, Pythagoras came to a sudden halt. A vast fava bean field stretched before him. He stood frozen, uncertain what to do. His head turned from left to right, in desperation his gaze fell upon the closest beans stalks, just inches away from his papyrus-bound feet The voices of the angry mob grew louder each minute. His pursuers were catching up with him. Frightened, frozen by the thought of inflicting any harm to these most sacred of plants to him, thought of his own demise not as the end but rather one measly stop in the continuous journey of the immortal soul through all living creatures. Butchers cleavers, machetes and many other available weapons, which Pythagoras was so opposed to, came down hard on him spilling blood on his pure white robe, and on the plants which he held so dearly, and thus ending his life."

Supposedly, the towering philosopher of Ancient Greece was a vegetarian. And this gives me an excellent subject for this Veganuary's recipe!

Pythagoras, the father of mathematics, was born and raised in Samos, around 580BCE. He is one of the most acclaimed pre-Socratic philosophers. Samos is a green island known for its mixed flora, full of mountains and plains, the most fertile of the latter being modern-day Pythagorio [named after the philosopher] and Marathòkampos. Olive groves are covering most of these plains.

"But, but but....what has that to do with old recipes???" I hear you ask!

Patience! All will be revealed! Anyway back to our story!

Even though Pythagoras spent more than forty years in the beautiful island of his birth, he eventually decided to set sail for new adventures, overseas; his curiosity for wisdom led him to travel throughout most of the then known world, most notably Egypt and Babylon; centres of wisdom, knowledge and secret mystical rites, before according to most accounts settling down to Croton, a town in Magna Graecia, modern Southern Italy. He may have found eager pupils to follow him, and welcoming ears to listen to his preaching. Pythagoras the vegetarian claimed that this diet had, by Demeter, been taught to Hercules, when he was sent into the Libyan deserts. This preserved his body in an unchanging condition; not at one time well, and at another time sick, nor at one time fat, and at another lean.

Despite all his proclamations for vegetarianism, he strikes us curiously in his belief on not eating beans. Healthy, cheap, sustaining, nutritious beans and pulses in ge

The Aristotelian argument defines change as the actualization of potential. For something to change it goes from potential to actual. A leaf on the tree has the potential to fall to the ground and this is actualized by gravity. In a nutshell, if you apply this to why things exist you’ll get to a purely actual actualizer that actualizes all potential of other things without itself being actualized.

However, for something to initiate change it has to undergo change itself. If I want to push an object like a boulder. I have to move my arms, and myself, which are changing positions. A puddle that changes in size is the result of the changing intensity of the weather temperatures. Things in our experience can actualize other things by going from potential to actual themselves. The idea of a purely actual actualizer that changes things without changing itself is logically incoherent.

Recently, a friend forwarded me a paper called 'The Semantics of Good and Evil', written by Robert Anton Wilson. I noticed something said in this paper: "To proceed from philosophical kindergarten to graduate school in one step, consider this more advanced illustration: between 1900 and c. 1926, quantum physicists discovered that certain Aristotelian “laws of thought” simply do not apply to the sub-atomic level". I would like to hear some thoughts on this statement, however, ultimately I'd like to better understand whether quantum theory violates Aristotelian laws of logic.

I want to know what books, sites, and so on to read. I would like to have an understanding of Aristotelian logic. I am a beginner and have read nothing on the topic. Where to I start.

Thank you all for your time.