I'm studying logic, myself. I'm about halfway through Sweet Reason, by Henle & Tomoczyko. Anyone who wants to study logic owes it to himself to become familiar with traditional Aristotelian logic as well as modern symbolic logic.
Henry B. Veatch is one author to look up on this (if you can find affordable used copies of his works). The principle textbook for traditional logic that's still in print is Socratic Logic by Peter Kreeft. Be aware that he is sharply critical of symbolic logic. It's good to be aware of the issues involved; in particular, the paradoxes of material implication. When symbolic logic was being developed, many of its supporters looked disparagingly on traditional logic. Few logicians take that view, anymore.
Symbolic logic won the fight, but traditional logic won the argument. By the former, I mean that symbolic logic is taught nearly to the exclusion of traditional logic. By the latter, I mean that the objections made by the old guard are seen by everyone as valid and are being addressed by the new logic. For example, in traditional logic, the conclusion follows with real necessity from the premises as an effect follows from a cause. Modern logic has revived the study of modal logic in order to deal such things as necessity and possibility.
Furthermore, while symbolic logic is superior for mathematical proofs and technical philosophy, traditional syllogistic logic is better suited for everyday life and verbal arguments; it is the Newtonian mechanics of logic.
Can you say more on the fight between traditional and symbolic logic? I'm glad to hear that classical logic is making a comeback, though it's news to me.
While writing a reply to you, my comment went to five paragraphs before I realized that there was no end in sight. I'll keep it short.
Any "comeback" of Aristotelian logic is slow in coming. What I see happening is that modern logicians take those old criticisms seriously and are addressing them. See quantified modal logic for an example.
15 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 44.5 ms ] threadEdit: Here, http://www.logicmatters.net/tyl/
Henry B. Veatch is one author to look up on this (if you can find affordable used copies of his works). The principle textbook for traditional logic that's still in print is Socratic Logic by Peter Kreeft. Be aware that he is sharply critical of symbolic logic. It's good to be aware of the issues involved; in particular, the paradoxes of material implication. When symbolic logic was being developed, many of its supporters looked disparagingly on traditional logic. Few logicians take that view, anymore.
Symbolic logic won the fight, but traditional logic won the argument. By the former, I mean that symbolic logic is taught nearly to the exclusion of traditional logic. By the latter, I mean that the objections made by the old guard are seen by everyone as valid and are being addressed by the new logic. For example, in traditional logic, the conclusion follows with real necessity from the premises as an effect follows from a cause. Modern logic has revived the study of modal logic in order to deal such things as necessity and possibility.
Furthermore, while symbolic logic is superior for mathematical proofs and technical philosophy, traditional syllogistic logic is better suited for everyday life and verbal arguments; it is the Newtonian mechanics of logic.
Any "comeback" of Aristotelian logic is slow in coming. What I see happening is that modern logicians take those old criticisms seriously and are addressing them. See quantified modal logic for an example.
http://www.amazon.com/Computability-Logic-George-S-Boolos/dp...
Another very good book on nuts and bolts proofs in both propositional and predicate logic is Beginning Logic by E. J. Lemmon.
http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Logic-E-J-Lemmon/dp/09151445...
And a great collection of primary texts covering the history of modern logic is From Frege to Godel..., edited by Jean van Heijenoort.
http://www.amazon.com/Frege-Godel-Mathematical-1879-1931-Sci...
(http://www.amazon.com/Deviant-Logic-Fuzzy-Beyond-Formalism/d...)
its not incredibly exhaustive, but i liked it at the time i read it. ymmv.