How important is syllogistic language to philosophy?

I picked up a logic text and it begins with syllogistic language but I'm more interested in informal logic, I'm not sure if this is a stupid question or not, do I need to study syllogistic logic to have a good understanding of informal logic?

Thanks,

j

__________________
J. M. - Baptist - Ontario, Canada - Feileadh Mor

"Nothing is more seductive for man than his freedom of conscience. But nothing is a greater cause of suffering."
The Brothers Karamazov

Hello JM,

No, you don't. However, understanding "syllogistic logic" is invaluable to critical thinking. One of the main reasons is that when you take someone's argument and put it into proper catagorical propositional form, it forces you to really understand (clarify) what the author is saying. The process of "translating" everyday language into proper logical form is absolutely invaluable.

Sincerely,

Brian

__________________
Brian Bosse
Faith Community Church
Tucson, Arizona
Scientiam Dei

Ok, I'll continue reading...thank you.

JM,

My pleasure. Do you mind telling me what text you are reading?

Thanks,

Brian

Just remember, logic cannot determine truth, only the validity of the "form" of an argument. Valid/Invalid are your only options when examining syllogyms, not True/False or Good/Bad etc. Something (an argument) can be logically valid and false, just like something can be logically invalid and true.

All those married in the LDS temple will become gods.
My wife and I were married in the LDS temple
Therefore, we will become gods

This is pristine logic based on a false premise.

Anyhow, which work are you going through?

__________________
Stephen
Reformer, SBC
Faith Defenders
Anaheim, CA
[URL="http://biblicalthought.com"]biblicalthought.com[/URL]

"Resolved, never to give over, nor in the least to slacken, my fight with my corruptions, however unsuccessful I may be." --Jonathan Edwards, The Resolutions, #56

Some dogs have spots.
My dog has spots.
My dog is some dog.

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

Hi Brian, I just started reading "Introduction to Logic" by Harry Gensler. I also have "Intro to Logic" by Copi/Cohen [8th ed.] and didn't know which one to start with, since I just started reading Gensler a few days ago I'm re-thinking my Copi's textbook.

Which one should I read?

j

A study of syllogistic logic will help you to analyze the form or structure of an argument. It will help you to discern whether or not the conclusion of an argument follows from the premises. However, when analyzing arguments it is not enough to know whether or not the conclusion follows from the premises. One must discern whether or not the premises are true.

__________________
Curt Hayashida
member, Community Bible Church (Non-denominational)
Vallejo, CA

To explain invalid syllogyms I always use this one--

Major Premise: God is love.
Minor Premise: I love spinach.
Conclusion: God is spinach.

There is alot of "god is spinach" type theology in christianity based upon faulty logic and invalid syllogyms. Know the approach. Practise valid reasoning--but beware the wierd stuff!

__________________
Sterling Harmon
Coventry, CT
PCA
Deacon
________________

"Whatever is laudable in our works proceeds from the grace of God."
-- John Calvin, Institutes III:xv.3.

"Our Lord God must be a good man, to be fond of worthless fellows. I cannot like them, and yet I, myself, am one."
-- Martin Luther, Table Talk

I have Copi/Cohen and it's pretty good. I don't agree that the idea of "existential import" was an improvement to traditional Aristotelian logic (and I don't think Copi really tries to prove otherwise, at least not formally), but for getting your mind around the basic principles of logic, Copi is considered a standard.

I started off learning logic with Gordon Clark's "Logic". It doesn't go into the depth or detail of Copi, and Clark uses his own notation (which can confuse people unfamiliar with it). However, I think Clark packs a lot of insight into his text. He never loses sight that logic is tied to philosophy. Modern logic seems to have lost touch with it's roots in Philosophy and it's more likely to be found under Mathematics and Computer Science. The result is that modern logic authors (like scientists) often have an empiricist world view underlying their thinking, but rarely examine their philosophical assumptions critically.

__________________
R. Anthony Coletti
Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Jonesborough, TN
[i]et venite et arguite me dicit Dominus[/i]

Excellent point, funny too, grieving as well...

Hello JM,

I am not familar with Harry Gensler's book. I am familar with Copi. A fabulous little book on informal fallacies is With Good Reason by Engel. It is by far my favorite. At the beginning, it has a section on syllogistic argumentation, but it mainly deals with informal stuff. The treatment is terrific.

Clark does a great job illustrating how to put informal propositions (say from the Bible) into proper catagorical form. I cannot commend this type of exercise too much. Plus, Clark is thoroughly Christocentric - even if a little eccentric. Along with Civbert, I am a fan of Clark.

As much as I appreciate and respect my friend Civbert, I cannot disagree with him more regarding his criticim of modern logic and modern logicians. First off, all non-Christian logicians (including Aristotle) do not have the proper starting point. Secondly, most of the modern logicians I read are aware of the historical roots and development of logic - much more so than the traditionalists I have personally encountered. Lastly, as a Chrisitian, I can affirm the value of modern logic - not over and against traditional logic, but along with it. In fact, I was listening to Alvin Plantinga argue a point against Naturalism that he got from Liebnitz. As I was listening to one particular argument, it dawned on me that formal systems (a huge area of study in modern logic) are a picture of what Plantinga was arguing. Essentially, he was arguing that mechanical processes cannot account for propositional meaning. In formal systems, meaning is not part of the system. Rather, it is brought to the system. As such, formal systems can be seen as illustrations of Plantinga's and Liebnitz's argument.

Sincerely,

Brian

I've downloaded and listened to many of the mp3's on Robbins site and have enjoyed them.

What are some of the problems with V. Cheung's work?

I'm going to be reading Copi's introduction...I just found it at alibris for super cheap (about $3.00)...all I know is that Greg Bahnsen said Copi's book was the BEST introduction...for whatever you think Bahnsen's opinion is worth, you probably don't want to discard Copi.

__________________
Craig French
Married and father of a beautiful daughter.
Member of Christ The Word, PCA
Toledo, OH

MY BLOG

I found his work fascinating. However, I haven't read everything he's written - and he appears to be a one-man-show (I don't know who he is accountable too). While I hesitate to endorse him, I've agreed with much of what I've read from him. Also others have had problems with him that I disagreed with.

I think I've read everything Cheung has online but haven't studied much in terms of Christian philosophy so I wasn't sure what to think.

Gensler's book is good, esp. since he puts his solutions manual online for free. I would probably start with Copi, though.

__________________
Don Jones
Member, First Presbyterian,
Jackson, MS

Let's say I wanted to start with Copi. Do I need to just march through the 700+ pages?

__________________
Davidius
Husband of Emilia
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics

This may explain the old adage about Baptists being Methodists with shoes, and Presbyterians being Baptists who can read. To round out the adage, Lutherans might qualify as Presbyterians who drink to excess, and Episcopalians as Lutherans who know when to say when. - D.G. Hart

I'm going to. I've been looking for direction in my study lately so this should help.

Don't waste your time with Cheung, it's not serious philosophy.

But I had to say it.

__________________
^Brian Lanier^
Member: Redeemer Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Santa Maria, CA
Attending: First Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Sunnyvale, CA
http://www.lanier-perspective.blogspot.com

What's not serious about it?

For starters, no *serious* contemporary philosopher would or has taken him *seriously*. Read some of Aquascum's critiques (just seach for it on google), they have not been dealt with in any satisfactory way. It is almost a waste of time to debate with them [those persuaded by Cheung]. The critiques are out there and they're good. Wish I could say more, but I just felt like opining (I just don't have the time to debate what has been debated ad nauseum).

When I took Logic in college that is sort of what we did, although we skipped the section on categorical syllogisms. Make sure you read the first three chapters carefully.

But then I would skip around and read and study what I needed to.

So...you say he's not a serious philosopher because "no serious philosopher would or has taken him seriously" and then support your argument by namedropping a guy called Aquascum. Well, okay. All I know about Aquascum is that he anonymously posts refutations of others' work on the internet and some people say that he is a "professional philosopher," whatever that means, and I don't understand how they could know this since he posts anonymously.

Neither do I know very much about Cheung, nor do I want to debate Cheung's philosophy with you (obviously, since I know only the very basics of it ). I just wanted to know what it is about him that makes him so unpalatable to you. It would not surprise me if no unbelieving philosophers would take a Christian philosopher seriously who bases his entire system on the Bible; the Word of God is foolishness to those who are perishing, right? But you're a believer, so what is it? his rejection of empiricism (not trying to make assumptions, it just seems that this is the problem most have with him and Clark)? If so, would you say that most of the Presocratics, Socrates, Plato, Plotinus, Augustine, Descartes, Kant, Leibniz, Spinoza, Clark, et al. were not serious philosophers in their own right, even though you may disagree with them?