We started a collab study of Logic some days ago.
We recognize the discipline of Logic as a useful tool for mathematical logic/philosophy, analytic philosophy, compsci just to name a few of disciplines you can apply it.
We're looking for lads who are also beginners in the discipline of Logic and want to join our journey in learning, understanding, discussing etc.
Our main source material is this:
http://www.fecundity.com/codex/forallx.pdf
It's easy and intuitive for beginners.
Join us in Slack (a website for collab group chats)
You can create a throwaway email account if you're worried about privacy, post here to get invited.
>hey fag no one cares
I know, it's hard to find autodidacts who are interested in this noble pursuit but we've grown in numbers (~80) and we're going slow but steady and strong, join the patrician journey.
>Slack
>not flax
Get the fnord out of here you Bob dick-sucking motherfucker.
>Doesn't provide any link to join
Simply epic
I am willing to compose a kind of a logic literacy test and publish it here.
We could then see how your joint autodidactic efforts have helped you, if at all, in internalizing and understanding Logic.
>>7860024
Alright, [email protected]
>>7860039
>Like a series of questions?
It could consist of:
(i) Questions (trivia) with multi-choice answers,
(ii) Computations (inside Sentential and Quantificational Logics for one of the standard deductive systems) via direct proof and RAA.
(iii) Asking to prove some of the elementary metalogical theorems and properties of SL and QL
>>7860074
I'd appreciate a ton if you did that.
I think we all would.
Questions like these are what solidifies and deepens understanding and knowledge on the subject.
Analytic philosophy ⊕ Continental philosophy ⇒ Reality
>>7860015
no knowledge, certainty, universality, truth, clarity, necessity will be gained from your speculations, formalized or not, labelled scientific or religious or philosophical.
precisely because your imagination is not really meant to be connected back from your five senses.
Scientists and any rationalist choose to think that a few of their favourite speculations, mental proliferations will lead them to truth about the world, will be ''validated empirically'' (after they invent the notion of ''validation'').
Why? because Scientists are hedonistic and love their hedonism. hedonistic people live through entertainment, which brings the most pleasures with the least discomfort. hedonism is the nihilism and most people rely on their speculations about the future, from the past experiences, to enhance their hedonism.
>>7860090
Only science has produced any tangible results.
>>7860098
It's gonna take 3-4 weeks to finish the book.
We're not rushing it, taking it all in.
>>7860103
>3-4 weeks
I suggest you to slow down. That's not nearly enough time to internalize it. There are plenty of university students with poor comprehension of Logic, mathematicians among them, that have had the subject for one or two semesters. Saying that you're "not rushing it" and "taking it all in" when in fact you're covering the subject 3-6 times faster than actual university students, will have negative impact on your grasp of the subject.
add me, my logic is weak
[email protected]
>>7860118
Good point.
Practice on problems make the internalization much stronger desu, which I believe will make the learning process faster, although yeah, time is of essence regardless.
I mean no matter how many times one reads definitions and examples they won't get him far, it's the tricky problems/questions that forces you to grasp all.
sign me up
[email protected]
>>7860074
Which one are you from the group?
>>7860246
I'm not in the group; I'm just curious in the relative success rate of all those participating (in a collaborative effort to understand a pretty dense subject), hence my proposal of a test.
>>7860260
Join in, judge us.
Why did I get banned?
>>7860757
you're not
>>7860769
>Hi Ap,
You recently tried to sign in to Post-Faustians, but it looks like your account for that team is disabled. We're sorry about that!
If you think this was a mistake, please contact a Team Administrator to reactivate the account.
Will this help me better express myself even as someone with not so rationalistic views? I just wish I could be more expressive sometimes..
>>7860841
Not really.
Read more, debate and discuss irl and online.
Write.
That's what you need to express yourself.
If Great Alexander was alive he would be a shitposter and would join an online logic study group from an autistic chinese cartoon imageboard.
>>7860095
How about happiness?
Science can't produce that.
Philosophy can.
And everything is meaningless without happiness.
>>7862102
Preach brother!
And to truth-seekers, and logic battalions:
Where do your contrived artifices lead you when you realize that contentment is manifested within the perceiver (i.e. YOU) and does never exist within the object?
When will you realize that these mental masturbation sessions only need to lead you a small ways before they overstay their welcome?
For it is a sheer mockery of life to not be living; being.
Which you do when you turn your attention, completely, to hallucinations of thoughts.
Make no mistake, thoughts are hallucinations, they have no tangible bearing on the world, they leave you confused and sad. Dissonant to the world you exist within, as a fragment of.
We come to the main course.
Interacting with your senses, in no contrived sense, with no sullying of beliefs or proofs.
Interacting with the creator of you and everything, life itself.
Moving as an iteration of life, not some manipulator of life; some passerby.
Then, you will accomplish the truest mission of mankind.
Then, you will actualize contentment and be free as free can be.
Logicians!
You are stepping in the right direction, but know when it is time to stop deliberating, and start being.
>>7862857
you're in.
>>7861394
Alexander would probably be into crossfit.
He'd conquer all the fags in there.
>>7860841
this is rhetoric, in 2016 it is what lawyers do
>>7863863
logic =/= rhetoric
>>7863235
cringed.
>sciencecan't produce happiness
Only it fucking does.
Go live in a fucking cave you fuckface.
>>7864923
Keep believing that and you'll never be able to experience true contentment.
Always fear and worry will poison your thoughts.
It's evident from your offended post that you are not at peace with your being.
Do you not realize that science has not brought you happiness?
Are you so blind that you cannot see that you are unhappy?
>>7861394
I think the general lack of strong belief in god made homosexuality strong.
They are negatively correlated.
>>7867227
>logic is about reasoning
Not, that's philosophy.
>>7868715
You have a calling.
Do we have logic gates in our brain?
1+1=2
Is analytic philosophy simply continental with formal logic or is it something entirely different?
[email protected]
hit me up with that formal logic shit senpai
>>7870069
>continental + formal logic = obscurity + logical rigour
this is contradictory
analytic philosophy is (clarity and argumentative force) + logical rigour
>>7870100
why do people defend continental philosophy so vehemently?
>>7870176
sentification
Continental phil has it merits.
is it too late to join? what do you guys do?
[email protected]
>>7860015
This is really, really gay.
>>7870100
>>
>analytic philosophy is (clarity and argumentative force) + logical rigour
so what are the results of analytic philosophy?
>computer science
>science
When will this meme end?
Does it uses the scientific method?
No.
Ergo it isn't science.
>>7871642
Computer science is a terrible name for this business. First of all, it's not a science. It might be engineering or it might be art. We'll actually see that computer so called science actually has a lot in common with magic.
It's also not really very much about computers. And it's not about computers in the same sense that physics is not really about particle accelerators and biology is not really about microscopes and petri dishes. It's not about computers in the same way that geometry is not really about using surveying instruments.
>>7871666
>it's not a science
Then why do they call it like that?
check ∧ mate
>>7860015
pseuds
>>7872678
What does that even mean?
Pseudointellectual?
>>7860083
Nice first order logic retard.
Continental phil: stimulation of thoughts
Analytic phil: actual philosophy
bth they are both important.
>>7872678
Logic, mathematics, science etc in essence are pseud, they can't describe reality.
