# SOCRATIC LOGIC PETER KREEFT PDF

An excerpt from chapter 1: Section 3. The two logics P This section can be omitted without losing anything you will need later on in the book. Inductive reasoning could be very roughly and inadequately defined as reasoning from concrete particular instances, known by experience, while deduction reasons from general principles. Induction yields only probability, while deduction yields certainty.

 Author: Mat Kazrashura Country: El Salvador Language: English (Spanish) Genre: Automotive Published (Last): 28 March 2013 Pages: 472 PDF File Size: 8.66 Mb ePub File Size: 12.73 Mb ISBN: 285-3-58073-269-1 Downloads: 68892 Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required] Uploader: Samulkis

About the Author: Peter Kreeft, Ph. His many bestselling books cover a vast array of topics in spirituality, theology, and philosophy. All rights reserved. The two logics P This section can be omitted without losing anything you will need later on in the book. Inductive reasoning could be very roughly and inadequately defined as reasoning from concrete particular instances, known by experience, while deduction reasons from general principles. Induction yields only probability, while deduction yields certainty.

Today nearly all logic textbooks use the new mathematical, or symbolic, logic as a kind of new language system for deductive logic. It is not a new logic; logical principles are unchangeable, like the principles of algebra.

It is more like changing from Roman numerals to Arabic numerals. There are at least three reasons for this change: 1 The first and most important one is that the new logic really is superior to the old in efficiency for expressing many long and complex arguments, as Arabic numerals are to Roman numerals, or a digital computer to an analog computer, or writing in shorthand to writing in longhand.

However, longhand is superior to shorthand in other ways: e. That is why most people prefer longhand most of the time — as most beginners prefer simpler computers or even pens. That is why Aristotelian logic is more practical for beginners. Even though symbolic language is superior in sophistication, it depends on commonsense logic as its foundation and root.

Thus you will have a firmer foundation for all advanced logics if you first master this most basic logic. Strong roots are the key to healthy branches and leaves for any tree.

Any farmer knows that the way to get better fruit is to tend the roots, not the fruits. This is only an analogy. Analogies do not prove anything — that is a common fallacy — they only illuminate and illustrate.

But it is an illuminating analogy. Modern symbolic logic is mathematical logic. Bayerly, in A Primer of Logic. Mathematics is a wonderful invention for saving time and empowering science, but it is not very useful in most ordinary conversations, especially philosophical conversations. The more important the subject matter, the less relevant mathematics seems. Its forte is quantity, not quality. Mathematics is the only totally clear, utterly unambiguous language in the world; yet it cannot say anything very interesting about anything very important.

Compare the exercises in a symbolic logic text with those in this text. How many are taken from the Great Books?

How many are from conversations you could have had in real life? The very artificiality of its language is a plus for its defenders. But it is a minus for ordinary people. Philosophy aims at insight into principles and into the relationship of conclusions to the principles from which they are derived. The old, Aristotelian logic was often scorned by 20th century philosophers because it rests on two commonsensical but unfashionable philosophical presuppositions.

The following summary should not scare off beginners; it is much more abstract and theoretical than most of the rest of this book. Hume inherited from his predecessor Locke the fatal assumption that the immediate object of human knowledge is our own ideas rather than objective reality.

Thus they were always particular e. Common sense says that we can be certain of some universal truths, e. Hume argued that particular facts deduced from these only-probable general principles could never be known or predicted with certainty. If it is only probably true that all men are mortal, then it is only probably true that Socrates is mortal.

The fact that we have seen the sun rise millions of times does not prove that it will necessarily rise tomorrow. We have only probable knowledge of objective reality. Even scientific knowledge, Hume thought, was only probable, not certain, because science assumes the principle of causality, and this principle, according to Hume, is only a subjective association of ideas in our minds.

But we do not see causality itself, the causal relation itself between the bird and the egg. We must be skeptics, if we are only Humean beings. Rather, knowledge constructs or forms reality as an artist constructs or forms a work of art. The knowing subject determines the known object rather than vice versa. Human knowledge does its job very well, but its job is not to learn what is, but to make what is, to form it and structure it and impose meanings on it.

Thus the world of experience is formed by our knowing it rather than our knowledge being formed by the world. I am predicting the effect from the cause. But symbolic logic does not allow this commonsensical, realistic interpretation. Besides epistemological realism, Aristotelian logic also implicitly assumes metaphysical realism.

Metaphysics is that division of philosophy which investigates what reality is; epistemology is that division of philosophy which investigates what knowing is. Epistemological realism contends that the object of intelligence is reality. Metaphysical realism naturally goes with epistemological realism. Technically, metaphysical realism is the belief that universal concepts correspond to reality; that things really have common natures;

ALESIS MIDIVERB 3 PDF

## Socratic Logic

About the Author: Peter Kreeft, Ph. His many bestselling books cover a vast array of topics in spirituality, theology, and philosophy. All rights reserved. The two logics P This section can be omitted without losing anything you will need later on in the book. Inductive reasoning could be very roughly and inadequately defined as reasoning from concrete particular instances, known by experience, while deduction reasons from general principles.

ANALISI TECNICA DEI MERCATI FINANZIARI PRING PDF

## Peter Kreeft’s Recommended Philosophy Books

Mar 17, Brian Chilton rated it it was amazing Peter Kreeft provides an introductory textbook on the argumentative logic of Socrates in his book Socratic Logic. These three sections are based upon the three main functions of any argument. First, one must define the terms to see whether they are clear or ambiguous. Then, one must evaluate the Peter Kreeft provides an introductory textbook on the argumentative logic of Socrates in his book Socratic Logic. Then, one must evaluate the premises to determine whether they are true or false.