Hume wanted to burn some books! Ok, then, which Logic texts should be first?

[2PhiloVoid]

The famous atheist, David Hume, whose teaching later influenced those who would think to make much out of the supposed cognitive bastion of Logic in language and huddle within a movement that came to be called, "Logical Positivism," once had this to say about certain books (mainly Christian kinds of books...)

When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume---of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance---let us ask: Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
​

But after having read the above piece from a chunk of Hume's "Concerning Human Understanding" while I was an undergrad Philosophy student at the university, and coming to know from whence we get the term "Humean Fire," I've always thought I should ask, "...why really stop there, Hume?"

So, I merely want to ask the rest of you [mainly atheists and skeptics] if you'll help me ponder over whether or not I should do some Spring cleaning, or rather, Spring burning. I've several books and textbooks on my shelves regarding 'Logic,' and they're just gathering dust and taking up needed space in this domicile of mine, so I'm wondering: If you were me, which of these Logic books [or any sources like them, books or websites or whatever] would you burn [or utterly erase from civilization]? ..................................................................Why?

Or, am I wrong to want to do so because I should somehow realize the 'information' within these books, and any other sources like them, is just so VERY VALUABLE to humanity?


Popular books on Logic and Critical Thinking:

Baggini, Julian, & Fosl. Peter S. (2010). The Philosopher's Toolkit: A Compendium of philosophical concepts and methods. Blackwell Publishing.

Gula, Robert J. (2007). Nonsense: Red Herrings, Star Men and Sacred Cows: How we abuse logic in our everyday language. Mount Jackson, VA: Axios Press.

Kahane, Howard, & Cavender, Nancy. (1998). Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The use of reason in everyday life (8th ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Whyte, Jamie. (2005). Crimes Against Logic. New York, NY: Mc-Graw Hill.​

Logic and/or Critical Thinking Textbooks:

Copi, Irving M., & Cohen, Carl. (1990). Introduction to Logic (8th ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Layman, C. Stephen. (1999). The Power of Logic. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Moore, Brooke Noel, & Richard Parker. (2001). Critical Thinking. Mountainview, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.​

 

[Amittai]

I take it you're not really with the criminal Hume?

Keep Baggini-Fosl - very good survey for reference, even if only at the level of brief hints. I don't know the other three in your top half.

I would say without knowing, keep those logic texts but re-evaluate them.

I love Stanley Jevons' drily humorous Elementary lessons in logic (I have 2010 reprint of 1888 edition). I love Gilson's Methodical realism, and bits in Newman that are about degrees of inference. I get something out of (not too advanced) commentaries on Peirce and Husserl.

I'm not yet into the notational side. Some of those that are, probably neglect the intuitional side.

I love Straight and crooked thinking by Robert Thouless (1953).

Gary Klein in The power of intuition (2004) explains how he harnesses intuition and logic together.

Ethics by John Oesterle (1957) basing himself on Aristotle has nice sections on virtues like reason, judgment, knowledge, prudence and proportion.

Excise the influence of Hegel, Spencer, Heidegger from your life! (Some claimed successors of the last are less bad.)

What books say it to you are what books say it to you.

Logic is far bigger than we are usually told. Something that "squares" for example is in epistemology, logic, metaphysics, aesthetics and ethics. It's destructive to claim logic is harmful or that ethics are unreasonable.

Edited: apologies for above - while I consider myself sceptical I may not be quite atheistic enough? But I certainly don't see any of my recommendations as "grinding theistic axes".

For that matter the atheist Gould's opposing of reifying in evolution is very logical.

 

[Radagast]

The famous atheist, David Hume, whose teaching later influenced those who would think to make much out of the supposed cognitive bastion of Logic

Logic was with us long before Hume.

 

[Moral Orel]

So, I merely want to ask the rest of you [mainly atheists and skeptics] if you'll help me ponder over whether or not I should do some Spring cleaning, or rather, Spring burning. I've several books and textbooks on my shelves regarding 'Logic,' and they're just gathering dust and taking up needed space in this domicile of mine, so I'm wondering: If you were me, which of these Logic books [or any sources like them, books or websites or whatever] would you burn [or utterly erase from civilization]? ..................................................................Why?

Or, am I wrong to want to do so because I should somehow realize the 'information' within these books, and any other sources like them, is just so VERY VALUABLE to humanity?


Popular books on Logic and Critical Thinking:

Baggini, Julian, & Fosl. Peter S. (2010). The Philosopher's Toolkit: A Compendium of philosophical concepts and methods. Blackwell Publishing.

Gula, Robert J. (2007). Nonsense: Red Herrings, Star Men and Sacred Cows: How we abuse logic in our everyday language. Mount Jackson, VA: Axios Press.

Kahane, Howard, & Cavender, Nancy. (1998). Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The use of reason in everyday life (8th ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Whyte, Jamie. (2005). Crimes Against Logic. New York, NY: Mc-Graw Hill.
Logic and/or Critical Thinking Textbooks:

Copi, Irving M., & Cohen, Carl. (1990). Introduction to Logic (8th ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Layman, C. Stephen. (1999). The Power of Logic. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Moore, Brooke Noel, & Richard Parker. (2001). Critical Thinking. Mountainview, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Burn 'em all. You're not going to do the harm to the information that was done a long time ago in book burnings before everything had a digital back up and a million printed copies, so have a ball and roast some marshmallows over them. Post a picture to this thread. Just be safe about it. No need to be a hoarder. Clutter just causes stress.

Let's be honest. You're not going to start valuing logic and critical thinking this late in your life. You follow your heart, and that's fine. You do you, buddy.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Burn 'em all. You're not going to do the harm to the information that was done a long time ago in book burnings before everything had a digital back up and a million printed copies, so have a ball and roast some marshmallows over them. Post a picture to this thread. Just be safe about it. No need to be a hoarder. Clutter just causes stress.

Let's be honest. You're not going to start valuing logic and critical thinking this late in your life. You follow your heart, and that's fine. You do you, buddy.

I think you've taken my shtick a little too literally there, Moral. I'm implying more than merely burning my logic textbooks. I'm implying that all logic needs to be pared down when in the face of ... itself (...but also in the face of Christian doctrine, for that matter).

And while I'm at it, should I also burn any Ray Bradbury books? I've got an extra copy of Fahrenheit 451.

Maybe it needs to go ... too?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Logic was with us long before Hume.

Yes, indeed. But apparently Hume and some of his successors seem to have missed some things about this term they so loosely fling around ... as if it's some ONE THING, some one thing that ensures the definition of everything else. When I contemplate this 1st level of thought, I wonder why some of these famous atheists could never make it to the 2nd level of thought, where they think about their thinking.

I guess that not only the use of logic has its limits, but human brilliance does as well!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I take it you're not really with the criminal Hume?

Keep Baggini-Fosl - very good survey for reference, even if only at the level of brief hints. I don't know the other three in your top half.

I would say without knowing, keep those logic texts but re-evaluate them.

I love Stanley Jevons' drily humorous Elementary lessons in logic (I have 2010 reprint of 1888 edition). I love Gilson's Methodical realism, and bits in Newman that are about degrees of inference. I get something out of (not too advanced) commentaries on Peirce and Husserl.

I'm not yet into the notational side. Some of those that are, probably neglect the intuitional side.

I love Straight and crooked thinking by Robert Thouless (1953).

Gary Klein in The power of intuition (2004) explains how he harnesses intuition and logic together.

Ethics by John Oesterle (1957) basing himself on Aristotle has nice sections on virtues like reason, judgment, knowledge, prudence and proportion.

Excise the influence of Hegel, Spencer, Heidegger from your life! (Some claimed successors of the last are less bad.)

What books say it to you are what books say it to you.

Logic is far bigger than we are usually told. Something that "squares" for example is in epistemology, logic, metaphysics, aesthetics and ethics. It's destructive to claim logic is harmful or that ethics are unreasonable.

Edited: apologies for above - while I consider myself sceptical I may not be quite atheistic enough? But I certainly don't see any of my recommendations as "grinding theistic axes".

For that matter the atheist Gould's opposing of reifying in evolution is very logical.

Yes, I agree with a lot of what you're saying here, bro! (Except for the part that insinuates that Philosophical Hermeneutics may be 'bad' on a lesser scale than its is Hegelian and Heideggerian predecessors ... eek! Not only am I wary of this suggestion of yours, but I don't think I'd do anything other than fully assimilate this mode of analysis as a substantial supplement into my overall thinking about the nature of LIFE and the processes of human thought. Anyway, don't get me wrong. I understand very well that for some folks, extricating a "P.H. Balance" from my life sounds like a very logical thing to do, but for me, it wouldn't be a very rational thing to do.)

 

[Silmarien]

But after having read the above piece from a chunk of Hume's "Concerning Human Understanding" while I was an undergrad Philosophy student at the university, and coming to know from whence we get the term "Humean Fire," I've always thought I should ask, "...why really stop there, Hume?"

I always got the impression that Hume wouldn't have really stopped there. He did go after the very notion of causality, after all, and had no problem carving away the very foundations of scientific knowledge too.

Granted, I'm not sure he wasn't just one of the most brilliant intellectual trolls of all time. He's a fantastic modern day Sophist. Or 18th century Sophist, I suppose.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I always got the impression that Hume wouldn't have really stopped there. He did go after the very notion of causality, after all, and had no problem carving away the very foundations of scientific knowledge too.

Granted, I'm not sure he wasn't just one of the most brilliant intellectual trolls of all time. He's a fantastic modern day Sophist. Or 18th century Sophist, I suppose.

As always, it's good to hear from you, Sil! I trust and hope that you and your family are fine through the ongoing turmoil and such.

As for Hume, I've always tended to be rather down on him on the whole, and I've had a slightly difference notion about him in that I've often thought he just wanted to get rid of religion because it was an 'inconvenience' over which he felt he had to climb.

However, that may not be the case and I suppose I should at least give him some minimal redeeming credit for having said in An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, that Pyronic Skepticism, as well as the kind of skepticism derived by Descartes' mental juggling of the former kind, could be (or really should be) "moderated," or else we'd basically need to throw our arms up in epistemic despair and die the death that might come from an over extended human lethargy in both thought and societal action. (see Section XII: Of the Academic or Skeptical Philosophy).

So, with that in mind, even for Hume, there still seems to be some remaining but thin shred of recognition that any effective praxis which could aid us in surviving in this world requires some measure and method involving the use of axiomatic inference. But as you've already hinted at, he wasn't too keen on it; and he wasn't too confident or at all clear about how such useful and productive thought can be said to hold together on the metaphysical front ... what with his representational bundles on one side, and his insistence about empiricism on the other.

I guess I can admit, too, that despite his shortcomings and the fact that I hold him with some chagrin, I've taken a more "moderate" hint from Hume in realizing that we should all be somewhat circumspect and (**cough**) humble in our evaluations, especially of those over which we might feel we're so very surely sure about, especially when we think we've deduced various truths from some various premises and conclusions......like he does (or like the later Logical Positivists have done).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm kind of still waiting for our expert skeptical Logicians to weigh in. So far, I've heard diddly squat!