How does the logic of philosophy differ from the everyday logic of man? Which book describes the logic of philosophy sufficiently?
And what is its practical use?
Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
The main difference, so to speak, between “philistine logic” is almost absolute subjectivism. From her point of view, anything that sounds convincing enough is logical. The criteria for this sufficiency, again, are subjective and individual. One of the tasks of logic as a philosophical discipline is to search for objective laws that will allow us to separate reasonable judgments, inferences, definitions, etc.from unreasonable ones. Since the object of logic research is language, it is quite possible to talk about objectivity here.
The second important difference is that “philistine logic” analyzes the content of a judgment (or inference, etc.), while philosophical logic analyzes the form, or rather the formula. Because immersion in meanings for logic is immersion in subjectivism. Although there are exceptions – for example, to check whether the listed concepts are divided on the same basis, you need to know the meanings.
There is no universal work in logic, just as there is no such work in any of the philosophical disciplines. If you want to seriously delve into the question – you need to study the history of philosophy, because the works on logic were written by representatives of various philosophical trends of different eras from Antiquity to Modern times.
The most practical application of logic is in law. Future lawyers, prosecutors and judges study logic without fail.
Very interesting question, thank you very much!
On the one hand, many people will say that the difference is cardinal: after all, philosophers are all such exalted people who think about the “high” and are alien to lowly passions. So, this is utter nonsense. Philosophers are just such people, and their passions are captured, sometimes, no less than all the others, as they say, ” nothing human is alien to philosophers.” Besides, I've never understood what it means to “think high”. When a philosopher thinks about Truth , does that mean “high”? And if he comes to the conclusion that there is no Truth (agnosticism) – then does it matter about the high or not? The problem is that the philosopher is not thinking about the “high” or “spiritual,” but rather about the difference between the two. For example, do philosophers think about the “spiritual”? Yes, of course, but only in contrast to the material. And not in the sense that “one should strive for the spiritual and reject all worldly things” – this is monasticism, not philosophy. And first of all in this way: how does the spiritual differ from the material in general? What does having these two concepts give the human mind? How productive is this juxtaposition?
Now, on the other hand, it seems that there is no difference between philosophers and “everyday people” – everywhere the same people, with their own ideas, passions and desires. This is true, but only partially. In my opinion, the philosophical mindset itself (what you call “logic”) has some peculiarities:
Focus more on thinking about the overall situation rather than on solving a specific problem. For example, not so much in what kindergarten to send a small son, but what do we want to achieve by raising a child? Do we send them to kindergarten simply because their parents need to work and there is no one else to look after them, or because we want to develop them in some way from an early age? And what exactly do we want to develop? And for what purpose-to then brag to friends/acquaintances that “my son reads at 3 years old”, or so that this knowledge will bring some benefit to the child himself in the future? Both the philosopher and the ordinary person answer these questions – but the philosopher answers them after first thinking and making a conscious decision, and the ordinary person answers simply by making a certain choice – as is customary, as is customary.
Philosophy, of course, teaches intellectual integrity and consistency of thought. In the sense that if an ordinary person sends a child to kindergarten because he has no one to leave him with, he can say that this is how he strives to “develop” the child. And a philosopher, if he really gives it to kindergarten, then it is precisely for the purpose that he thinks. I am not referring to everyday hypocrisy, when we say one thing and think another (a philosopher can also lie), but rather honesty to himself – the philosopher understands his own motives for himself. The everyday person lies, first of all, to himself.In addition, philosophy teaches consistency: for example, if a philosopher comes to the conclusion that children's “development” is a waste of time and money (and such a point of view exists), then he will no longer do this, simply because “well, everyone does it”. Perhaps, instead of raising a child from the age of 3 to become an athlete, athlete, artist, and young genius, it is better to give him the opportunity to be a child? Maybe many parents who make up such a schedule for their children that they have free time only on Fridays from 7.00 to 7.20-often do it out of their own vanity, and this will not bring happiness to their children at all? Again, the philosopher does not impose such a point of view – but he will suggest at least thinking about these questions. And make a decision AFTER you think about it, not instead.
Philosophy calls for maximum clarity of presentation of thoughts. In our everyday speech, we very often use words with unknown meanings. Think about such words as “thinking”, “space”, “existence”, “beauty” – you can immediately define them, and explain why, for example, you think one is beautiful and the other is not? What criteria do you use to determine this? Here the philosopher strives to formulate these criteria in some way. Naturally, it is not always possible to do this firmly and definitively, but it seems to me that it is better to have at least vague criteria than not to have any at all.
Here are the differences between “philosophical logic” (or, better to say, “philosophical mindset”, since logic, as already mentioned, is one) and the thinking of an “everyday person”. Naturally, the list is far from exhaustive, and it is not mandatory. As I said above, the criteria that philosophy offers are rarely completely defined, but at least some criteria are better than none at all.
This is a very cool question, thank you.
I recently wrote a separate text on this topic, which is quite detailed there. Here I will answer theses, so as not to repeat myself.
Philosophy and everyday logic use the same words as concepts, but give them completely different meanings.
Philosophers use words to reveal the meaning of what is happening in the world, ordinary people-to hide it in a very special way, which sounds like “everything is clear enough”. Therefore, philistine logic does not go beyond quoting philosophical texts – for it this is the same blah-blah as everything else.
As for philosophical logic, it is available in any book on philosophy, but you need to get access to it. If you really want to understand, you need to go through all the misconceptions associated with philosophy and its texts, literally take them out on yourself, and then, having learned, you can get the key to understanding any philosophical text.
Previously, in philosophical schools, new students were initiated in order to tune in to the correct perception of this knowledge – you can read about the Pythagoreans and the Academy. Now everyone is looking for ways to tune in to the wave with which you can correctly grasp the meaning of philosophical texts, so everyone has different tests for initiation.
Everyday logic is characterized by many unconscious errors. Otherwise, the logic is the same for everyone, as is its application. Pick up and read any textbook on logic.
Until recently, people became philosophers more by chance and inclination than professionally, and the logic of their systems depended on their personal qualities, temperament, dominant religions in society, political and economic factors and ongoing transformations, or even was a protest against them. A number of significant philosophers rejected the importance of logic in certain issues. This can be seen clearly, briefly and humorously in Bertrand Russell's masterpiece “History of Western Philosophy”. The book was first published in 1943, so everything is relevant. Good luck!
Thinking has two aspects that are not always distinguishable. The first, well — known to all, is the logical-sombolic side of thought (Aristotle's formal logic here. Well, symbolic, modern, or mathematical logic here). But there is another side to thinking: the state of thought and understanding. That's what interests philosophers. And philosophers clarify and extend this dimension of thought with the help of a special, existential language (the language of metaphysics). And speaking such a language is a skill that is practiced, and not read in books.
As you know, “as many philosophers – so many philosophies”.
There are significantly fewer different logics.
For example, Wikipedia provides a list of logics known to mankind (I think it is far from complete):
2.1 Logic in Ancient China
2.2 Indian Logic
2.3 European and Middle Eastern logic
2.3.1 The logic of Antiquity
2.3.2 Logic in the Middle Ages
2.3.3 Logic in the Renaissance and Modern times
3 Informal, formal, symbolic and dialectical logic
5 Metalogics
6 Traditional logic
7 Classical mathematical logic
8 Non-classical logics
8.1 Logics that abrogate the law of excluded third parties
8.2 Multi-valued logics
8.3 Non-deductive logical theories
8.4 Other non-classical logics
8.4.1 Modal logic
So, what book do you plan to start studying, which logic and which philosophy in this situation?
)
The LOGIC of the common man is very far from perfect. One of the reasons is that colloquial everyday low-scientific language is very poorly adapted for in-depth analysis of scientific problems.
PHILOSOPHICAL logic is not much different from scientific logic, but it is very spoiled by philosophical unfortunate jargon, which is not successfully used in exact natural science and everyday speech, and which is categorically not recommended for beginners.
The only way to become a MASTER OF PRACTICAL LOGIC, like Sherlock Holmes, is to systematically solve logical problems from different sciences. The main thing here is practical Skill.
SOPHISTRY, the evil daughter of mother philosophy , is the science of deceiving your opponent with logical tricks.
Read Wittgenstein's Logical and Philosophical Treatise. A small book written in simple language. He has formulas there that you can skip, the meaning of this will not change.
Ordinary people in everyday life usually do not overload themselves with strict logic of judgments. Philosophers elevate logic to the status of the supreme arbiter, and consider it a necessary condition for proving the truth of judgments .However, the validity of the conclusions of logical constructions depends on the accuracy of determining the initial premises and the correctness of logical constructions, which is extremely rare in practice. I think that not a single philosophical teaching has done without logical errors, which leads to absurd conclusions and paradoxes.
There is an anecdotal story about female logic.
The husband, returning home late, builds a non-contradictory , truthful, logical “legend”in his head. Checks it for credibility, goes through dozens of options. Finally, he concludes that the “legend” is flawless. On arrival, he begins to explain it to his wife. However, she does not even listen to the end, says-You're lying!”What makes you think that?”-
“You look away when you're lying.-
There is only one way to check logical conclusions-experience, practice.
the question is incorrect.logic is the science of the real world.philosophy is the science of the illusory world.there is no logic of philosophy a priori.the philosopher builds his idea on personal perception of the real world.and such ideas do not work in reality.
There is a distinction between formal logic and informal logic (dialectical, everyday). The first defines knowledge as logical truth and falsehood, the second expresses opinion as illogical truth and falsehood.
For example, “today is Wednesday” is an illogical truth, also known as an illogical lie, which changes the meaning situationally depending on the day of the week or context, just like any opinion.
Opinion is both true and false, it is divided into opposites that constitute a dialectical contradiction; whereas knowledge is always true within the well-defined limits of its definition, within which it cannot logically become erroneous.
Formal logic is used for thinking and expressing knowledge, while dialectical logic is used as a colloquial language for communicating and expressing opinions, feelings, emotions, memes, where brevity is important, not accuracy.Therefore, the same words and phrases, being linguistic constructions without a clear definition, can express many different ideas and images at once, depending on the context and subtext, up to the opposite.
Oh, how twisted. Logic is logic. Philosophy is philosophy.
***
Logic: the science of forms and laws of thinking. It is also considered a normative science about the laws of logic and methods of intellectual cognitive activity.
Philosophy: a special form of cognition of the world that develops a system of knowledge about the most general characteristics, extremely generalizing concepts and fundamental principles of reality (being) and cognition, human being, and the relationship between man and the world.
***
When a person enters graduate school, they study logic separately, philosophy and the history of science separately.
Based on their own logic, philosophers develop their own teachings. There are quite a lot of philosophical approaches.
I'm a little confused about what you mean by everyday logic.
Let's start at the end. I have a dictionary of logic. There are about ten of them…nemereno.
What is logic? Example: Does the sun rise every morning for a lifetime? Will it rise tomorrow morning? The logical answer is that it will definitely rise. But this is not a fact! So logic is some mental representation of the movement (change) of something that interests us.
The logic of philosophy? The answer is in tautology: the logic of philosophy is realized by the philosophy of logic.
How does it differ from everyday life? The question is nonsense! Do you think that philosophy is practiced on the days of holidays, and on weekdays-kitchen logic, i.e. everyday??!
Logic and philosophy are very scrupulous about the choice and use of words, and you are not so scrupulous yet…Something like that…