Best Philosophy Books (Logic) | Dr. Bill Roach
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 жов 2024
- In this video, Dr. Bill Roach recommends several logic books for all levels.
1. Aristotle, Posterior Analytics.
2. Norman Geisler, Come Let Us Reason
3. Howard Pospesel, Introduction to Predicate and Propositional Logic (2 different books)
4. Harry Gensler, Introduction to Logic.
5. Peter Kreeft, Socratic Logic
Extra Book: Peter Kreeft, The Best Things in Life
Your "wisdom incarnate" comment won my subscription. The sarcasm won my heart, thanks for the book referrals and I agree that Pastors need to preach more on logic and actually equip the saints with more than just emotional appeal. The King is on the move my friend. God Bless!
Thanks, this is exactly what I was looking for, I was interested in this topic and couldn't find credible books to read. I subscribed, you probably have more good content.
Glad it was helpful!
Excellent recommendations Dr Roach. I’ll start with Peter Kreeft’s Socratic logic along with the voyage of discovery. Thanks again
Thanks for the video. I took logic in high-school, but need too freshen up my skills. It's so important to be able to ask good questions these days to get people to open up within their own assumptions as well as make sure my own are solid. Knowing the right questions to asks helps guide you in areas that you may not know much about. Thanks again for the recommendations.
Glad it was helpful!
I've been wondering how to even begin to approach this question for 30years. I've never even seen any one have a go at it. Great.
My go to logic book is A. C. Grayling's "An Introduction to Philosophical Logic"(3rd Edn. 1997) Because he places mostly 20th Century modern logic very clearly within the wider philosophical contexts that it was engaged with at the time. So we see that logic is not so much a self standing autonomous sue generic discipline but a space of conflicts many of which are concerned with positions and disputes related to metaphysics, meaning, language, ontology, nature, etc.
Could do with a text book on Practical Reason that does a similar thing. But that's a task well above my pay grade.
Thank you for your work here Dr. Roach. Happy (y-1)mass.
Great Job Dr Bill Roach.
Second attempt at posting a comment-server down?Anyhow,my interest in logic primarily began with the Ontological Argument for the existence of God.Dr.Roach seems to be stating that Jesus and Socratic Logic are the most reliable means we have to establish truth.A mathematical logician would probably say that mathematical logic is the most reliable method we have to establish truth.
Thank you so much for the recommendations, definitely gonna read
Thanks for sharing these recommendations, Dr. Roach! Very helpful!
This was an enriching discussion on studying logic from a Christian perspective. You've motivated me to take a second look at Kreeft's text, it also comes up in more "agnostic" logic settings shall we say. That being said, there is a logic for Mathematics & Computer Science, etc. where a Socratic/Aristotelian approach is not going to be as useful. I'm still long overdue to deal with Aristotle's Posterior Analytics though, the second push you've given me is to dig it out of the closet.
Thank you!
Awesome! More books to read!! Ive been reading "Vern S. Poythress
Logic: A God-Centered Approach to the Foundation of Western Thought".
Thanks for sharing!
@@DrBillRoach thank you as well!!
Wow, didnt expect that intro👀, 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾. You just earned like #267🤗
I began my reading of Kreeft's Socratic Logic this morning. I invite anyone to join me.
Great!
@@DrBillRoach I'm learning for the first time that thought has a structure. One error I've been committing is to not spend enough time on basic apprehension of terms as Kreeft describes around page 27. I've been presuming that I comprehend adequately the meaning of concepts when in fact I've not. Therefore, the use of judgement and reasoning is weakened in my thought. The increasing complexity from simple apprehension, to judgement, to reasoning is beginning to make sense.
For example, I have a statement: if Peter likes Mary and Mary likes Bob, then Peter likes Bob. From the standpoint of formal logic it's true, because if A->B and B->C then A->C. But if we dig into the context, it won't be true. What kind of logic need to use in such examples when you consider statement not only from the standpoint of formal logic, but from the standpoint of context? I've heard about a dialectical logic, that this logic consider context too. but I'm not sure. (As I know , the difference between dialectics and metaphysics, that metaphysics absolutizes things, for example Thing A is always equal to Thing A, but in reality all things and our thoughts about things is changing, and Thing A is not equal to Thing A. It's equal only in period of time, when quantitative changes do not change the quality of a thing much, after which Thing A can't be equal to Thing A )
Hi, first time viewer. Great video! It's exactly what i've been looking for.
I've got one question: I've heard, and read a little bit about Intuitionistic logic, where you don't presume things are either true or false, but they can be unknown (or non computable). What a re your thoughts on that?
I’ll make a video about it after the Holidays
If you don't mind my asking, how do we know that God is subject to the same rules of logic that we are? It does seem to make sense that God cannot do both of two mutually exclusive things, like give us free will and at the same time not give us free will, but if God made the rules of logic, couldn't he also unmake them or just decide not to follow them all the time? I've just been having some doubts lately.
Thank you for the video!
The rules of logic are principles of being. Principles of being are fundamental features of reality. God is the most fundamental being (whose identity is most true, who cannot be anything less than most true, and cannot be somewhere in between). Those three properties are the three laws of logic and are based upon the nature of Gods so, it isn’t that God is subject to the laws, they’re reflections of his very nature.
Dr Roach, what's your view of Copi's Logic ?
It’s good for its approach.
Peter Kreeft is terrific
Issue number one, Columbus got to Caribbean Islands, not the United States of America, which he was late to discover, as there's evidence that Africans, Chinese, and vikings preceeded him by many centuries.
History and logic intertwine, and were developed by every major culture on the planet. India and China also developed these to very advanced stages, as well.
Columbus discovered Iowa. That’s my thesis.
@@DrBillRoach your thesis is in error. Iowa is landlocked.
The Mississippi + Lake Michigan + Mike Ditka = Columbus Discovered Iowa.
QED
Hello there! Thank you for the great content! I am interested in introducing logic to my kids; do you have a book recommendation for elementary age?
Hey love your channel and may I ask a question:
If in set theory, I can create a relation which takes a set of elements which are propositions (like set a is a subset of set b) and map it to a set of elements containing “true” and “false”, then why is it said that set theory itself can’t make truth valuations?
I ask this because somebody told me recently that “set theory cannot make truth valuations” Is this because I cannot do what I say above? Or because truth valuations happen via deductive systems and deductive system is technically not part of say, the first order set theory ?
Thoughts on Dr. Vern Poythress book on logic?
I haven’t read it. I need to. Thank you for putting it on my radar.
هل بإمكانك صديقي شرح كتاب المبادئ الرياضية بيرتراند راسل
@@Conatus_100 👍
I have no clue what you said.
Great job ! A Intelligent person
Logics books by
Copi
Hurely
And also logic for mathematician as well mathematical logic
Thank you
y r his examples too religious
How people can talk about god and logic in the same sentence is wild to me. 😂
You just did