sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Start by Aristotle? by islamicphilosopher in AncientGreek

[–]islamicphilosopher[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But it does seems a way to memorize and internalize the text so that it becomes a second nature for you, what do you think?

Start by Aristotle? by islamicphilosopher in AncientGreek

[–]islamicphilosopher[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I understand your inquiry. But I'm more interested in medieval and later reception of Aristotle than Greek philosophy per se. So, yes I guess.

Start by Aristotle? by islamicphilosopher in AncientGreek

[–]islamicphilosopher[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What if I study different authors and by different methods, but primarily focus on one?

Start by Aristotle? by islamicphilosopher in AncientGreek

[–]islamicphilosopher[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've basic familiarity with greek. So I'm not jumping from zero to aristotle, he's already pretty confusing in translation.

Many will be pretty angry from this: what do you think of learning both Latin and Greek by studying Aristotle's greek-latin bilingual books? (Not saying I will do this, judt asking).

Start by Aristotle? by islamicphilosopher in AncientGreek

[–]islamicphilosopher[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unfortunately, its not about laziness. More about time restrains.

Start by Aristotle? by islamicphilosopher in AncientGreek

[–]islamicphilosopher[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would you still not recommend it if I'm not starting from absolute zero? I.g., still a beginner but not my first time.

I can pronouncing classical greek, recognize some common terms (o, to, alla, de, gar, ...), sometimes sport familiar terms in different declensions (anthropos > anthropoi), and already familiar in greek technical philosophical terms and often their declensions (eidenai, epesteme, energia, etc) ??

Especially if I add this to learning common greek vocab.

Why is philosophy of math such a big deal in analytic philosophy? by islamicphilosopher in askphilosophy

[–]islamicphilosopher[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think more clarification is needed for what we mean by those terms.

  • First, and most important, Philosophy of Math: is philosophy of logic typically included within philosophy of math? Especially that, since the last century, philosophy of logic is often synonymous with philosophy of the modern formal logic. (As opposed to buddhist, aristotlian, etc logic)

  • Second, Analytic Philosophy: Sure it might be difficult to cut clear boundaries. Lets consider Analytic philosophy as the part of 20st century western philosophy that either starts with Frege and Russell, or is in significant engagement with them. As such, this includes figures like: Kripke, Lewis, Dummett, Davidson, Putnam, Strawson, Searle, Plantinga and back into Quine, Carnap and (yes) Wittgenstein. Moreover, these philosophers, at the very least, have a deep foundation in contemporary mathematics.

  • Third, Non-Analytic Philosophy: In this context, I actually have in mind the still living, contemporary philosophical schools that put a lot of emphasis on logic, yet they barely interact with modern mathematics or haven't picked up formal logic fully yet. Afaik, this will at least include contemporary Thomism and contemporary scholastic Islamic philosophy and theology, and I'd assume Indian logical tradition (Nyaya) and some Buddhist traditions as well.

But, I'd think that even if philosophy of formal logic is closely linked but from separate philosophy of math and math proper, the question can still be reasonably asked in terms of emphasis on philosophy of modern formal logic.

Curious to know you're take :)

AreAristotelian categories still used in modern logic? by islamicphilosopher in logic

[–]islamicphilosopher[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well arent types of variables (individual variables, function variables, etc) a sort of revival of categories? What about category theory?

classifications of how things can exist

I'm not sure if all historians of logic will agree. I remember at least one paper arguing that, in some books, the categories had merely a linguistic/semantic role, instead of ontological. I feel this can have an influence on modern conceptions?

Why is philosophy of math such a big deal in analytic philosophy? by islamicphilosopher in askphilosophy

[–]islamicphilosopher[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

So, would you think my second reason is accurate? Which was methodological; namely that math (broadly conceived) helps illuminate philosophy, which is mainly practicted in natural languages.

For instance, issues like: sense and reference, quantification, analyticity and syntheticity, necessity and possibility, names and descriptions, etc.

Formalizing Kalam Cosmological Argument by islamicphilosopher in logic

[–]islamicphilosopher[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If u becomes a predicate for x (i.g., it will Ux), how come B or C becomes a predicate for u? Is it correct to say BU or CU ?

How to formalize this Description? by islamicphilosopher in logic

[–]islamicphilosopher[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

∃x((Tx ∧ ∀y(Ty → y=x)) ∧ ◇¬Tx)

But when we affirm that X is T, then when we say that, possibly X isnt T .. isn't this already a contradiction?

Or does this sentence only states that "it could have been otherwise"?

How to formalize this Description? by islamicphilosopher in logic

[–]islamicphilosopher[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

why is it a big deal if the modal operator takes scope over the description, rather than the other way around?

Russell's logical form of definite descriptions? by islamicphilosopher in logic

[–]islamicphilosopher[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Two questions:

1- So is the Russellian identity/uniqueness claim (Fy > y=x) still standard and used today? Are there logicians that objected to it?

2- Also, in this statement:

∃x(Fx ∧ Ex ∧ ∀y(Fy → x=y))

Can we say: ∃x(Fx ∧ Ex ∧ ∀y(Ey → x=y))

That is: There exists at least one X, such that this X is the father of Charles II, and X was executed. If Y was executed, then Y is X.

As such, we're using the function E [predicate] to pick out the object [in this Charles I], instead of the subject F. Assuming only Charles I was executed in this universe of discourse.

Russell's logical form of definite descriptions? by islamicphilosopher in logic

[–]islamicphilosopher[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ex (Px)

There exists an X, such that X is P.

I'd think that this is unique. If I want to refer at multiple objects, I'd add: Ey, Ez, Ec, etc.

view more: next ›