SOCRATIC LOGIC PETER KREEFT PDF

adminComment(0)

Socratic Logic: A Logic Text Using Socratic Method, Platonic Questions & Aristotelian Principles. Peter Kreeft. St. Augustine's Press (). Socratic Logic 3e Pbk: A Logic Text Using Socratic Method, Platonic Questions, and Aristotelian Principles. Peter Kreeft. St. Augustine's Press (). Kreeft, Peter. Socratic logic: a logic text using Socratic method, Platonic questions & Aristotelian principles / by Peter Kreeft; edited by Trent Dougherty. - Ed.


Socratic Logic Peter Kreeft Pdf

Author:LAVERNE FULLAM
Language:English, German, Dutch
Country:Malaysia
Genre:Personal Growth
Pages:352
Published (Last):15.04.2016
ISBN:317-7-70689-953-3
ePub File Size:30.61 MB
PDF File Size:12.75 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Registration Required]
Downloads:43562
Uploaded by: VALENTINE

Peter Kreeft. Socratic Logic: A Logic Text Using Socratic Method,. Platonic Questions, & Aristotelian Principles. Indianapolis: St. Augustine's Press, pp. ramblipetasga.ml: Socratic Logic: A Logic Text using Socratic Method, Platonic Questions, and Aristotelian Principles, Edition (): Peter Kreeft . 1) Socratic Logic by Peter Kreeft a. The Two Logics b. All Logic in Two Pages: An Overview (B) c. The Three Acts of the Mind (B) d. The First Act of the Mind.

In fact, he was working on volume two when he died. Religious faith. All religions require faith. Is logic the ally or enemy of faith? Some wit defined "faith" as "believing what you know isn't true. It is true that faith goes beyond what can be proved by logical reasoning alone. That is why believing in any religion is a free personal choice, and some make that choice while others do not, while logical reasoning is equally com- pelling for all. However, logic can aid faith in at least three ways.

And thus, if faith significantly increases human happiness, as most psychologists believe, it logically follows that logic can significantly increase happiness.

First, logic can often clarify what is believed, and define it. Second, logic can deduce the necessary consequences of the belief, and apply it to difficult situations. For instance, it can show that if it is true, as the Bible says, that "God works all things together for good for those who love Him" Romans , then it must also be true that even seemingly terrible things like pain, death, and martyrdom will work together for good; and this can put these terrible things in a new light and give us a motive for enduring them with hope.

Third, even if logical arguments cannot prove all that faith believes, they can give firmer reasons for faith than feeling, desire, mood, fashion, family or social pressure, conformity, or inertia. For instance, if you believe the idea mentioned above, that "all things work together for good for those who love God," simply because you feel good today, you will probably stop believing it tomorrow when you feel miserable; or if you believe it only because your friends or family do, you will probably stop believing it when you are away from your friends or fam- ily.

But if you have logical grounds for believing this, even though those grounds are not a compelling proof, they can keep your faith more firmly anchored dur- ing storms of changing feelings, fashions, friends, etc. How could there be logical grounds for such a belief as this that "all things work together for good" that seems to contradict common sense and experi- ence? Some logical grounds might be the following: this conclusion can be log- ically deduced from four premises which are much easier to believe: 1 that God exists, 2 that God is the Creator of the universe and thus all-powerful, 3 that God is the source of all goodness and thus all-good, and 4 that God is the source of all design and order in the universe and thus all-wise.

A God who is all-powerful is in control of everything He created; a God who is all-good wills only good to everything He created; and a God who is all-wise knows what is ultimately for the best for everyone and everything He created. So to deny that all things are foreseen and allowed by God for the ultimate good of those He loves, i. In a logical argument, you cannot deny the conclusion without deny- ing a premise, and you cannot admit the premises without admitting the conclu- sion.

The logical chains of argument can thus bind our minds, and through them also even our feelings to a certain degree , to God and to hope and to happiness. The point is not that logic can prove religious beliefs - that would dispense with the need for faith - but that it can strengthen them and thus also the hap- piness that goes with them.

And if it does not - if clear, honest, logical think- ing leads you to tftsbelieve something you used to believe, like Santa Claus then that is progress too, for truth should trump even happiness. If we are hon- est and sane, we want not just any happiness, but true happiness.

For logic is one of philosophy's main instru- ments. Logic is to philosophy what telescopes are to astronomy or microscopes to biology or math to physics. You can't be very good at physics if you're very bad at math, and you can't be very good at philosophy if you're very bad at logic. There are even crucial social and political reasons for studying logic. As a best-selling modern logic text says, "the success of democ- racy depends, in the end, on the reliability of the judgments we citizens make, and hence upon our capacity and determination to weigh arguments and evi- dence rationally.

Defining logic's limits. Does logic have limits? Yes, but we need logic to recognize and define logic's limits.

Logic has severe limits. We need much more than logic even in our think- ing. For instance, we need intuition too. But logic helps us to recognize this dis- tinction. In our lives, logical arguments are always embedded in a human context that is interpersonal, emotional, intuitive, and assumed rather than proved; and this colors the proper interpretation of a logical argument.

For instance, in Dcscartes said "I think, therefore I am"; years later, a bumper sticker says "I bitch, therefore I am. Descartes was seriously trying to refute skepti- cism the belief that we cannot be certain of anything by a purely theoretical argument, while the bumper sticker was making a joke.

We laugh at it because we intuitively understand that it means "Don't complain at my bitching; bitch- ing makes me feel more 'real,' more alive. Testing authority. We need authority as well as logic. But we need logic to test our authorities. We need authorities because no individual can discover everything autonomously. And that is another reason we need logic: we need to have good reasons for believing our authorities, for in the end it is you the individual who must decide which authorities to trust.

It is obviously foolish to download from every peddler of ideas that knocks on your mind's door. In fact, it is impossible, because they often contradict each other.

You might also like: DEDUCTIVE LOGIC GOLDFARB PDF

Recognizing contradictions. One of the things you will learn in this course is exactly what contradiction means, how to recognize it, and what to do with it.

Download options

Logic teaches us which ideas contradict each other. If we are confused about that, we will be either too exclusive that is, we will think beliefs logical- ly exclude each other when they do not or too inclusive that is, we will believe two things that cannot both be true. When we consider two different ideas which seem to contradict each other, we need to know three things: 1 First of all, we need to know exactly what each one means.

Only then can we know whether they really contradict each other or not. These are the "three acts of the mind": understanding a meaning, judging what is true, and reasoning. These are the three parts of logic which you will learn in this course.

Section 1: “All of Logic in 2 Pages”, by Peter Kreeft

Logic has "outer limits"; there are many things it can't give you. But logic has no "inner limits": like math, it never breaks down. Logic is timeless and unchangeable. It is certain. It is not certain that the sun will rise tomorrow it is only very, very probable.

But it is certain that it either will or won't. And it is certain that if it's true that it will, then it's false that it won't.

In our fast-moving world, much of what we learn goes quickly out of date. But logic never becomes obsolete. The principles of logic are timelessly true. Our discovery of these principles, of course, changes and progresses through history. Aristotle knew more logic than Homer and we know more than Aristotle, as Einstein knew more physics than Newton and Newton knew more than Aristotle.

Our formulations of these changeless logical principles also changc. This book is clearer and easier to read than Aristotle's Organon years ago, but it tcaches the same essential principles. Our applications of the timeless principles of logic to changing things are also changing.

The principles of logic apply to many different and changing things, but the principles themselves are unchanging and rigid. They wouldn't work unless they were rigid.

In Defense of Symbolic Logic: A Response to Peter Kreeft

When we hear a word like "rigid" or "inflexible," we usually experience an automatic "knee-jerk" negative reaction. But a moment's reflection should show us that, though people should not usually be rigid and inflexible, principles have to be. Unless the yardstick is rigid, you cannot use it to measure the non-rigid, changing things in the world, like the height of a growing child.

Trying to meas- ure our rapidly and confusingly changing world by a "flexible" and changing logic instead of an inflexible one is like trying to measure a squirming alligator with a squirming snake. Our last reason for studying logic is the simplest and most impor- tant of all. It is that logic helps us to find truth, and truth is its own end: it is worth knowing for its own sake.

Logic helps us to find truth, though it is not sufficient of itself to find truth. It helps us especially 1 by demanding that we define our terms so that we understand what we mean, and 2 by demanding that we give good reasons, arguments, proofs. These are the two main roads to truth, as you will see more clearly when you read Chapter II, on the three "acts of the mind": understanding, judging, and reasoning. Truth is found only in "the second act of the mind," judging - e.

These are the two main ways logic helps us to find truth. Truth is worth knowing just for the sake of knowing it because truth fulfills and perfects our minds, which are part of our very essence, our deep, distinctive- ly human core, our very selves.

Truth is to our minds what food is to our bodies. Aristotle pointed out, twenty-four centuries ago, that there are three reasons for pursuing truth and three corresponding kinds of "sciences" in the older, broader sense of the word "sciences," namely "rational explanations through causes". He called the three kinds of sciences 1 "productive sciences," 2 "practical sciences," and 3 "theoretical sciences. We call it "technology" after the Greek word techne, which means approximately "know-how" knowing how to make or fix or improve some material thing in the world.

Aristotle called this "practical science," knowledge in practice, in action. These all have practical applications and uses, but they are first of all aimed at simply knowing and understanding the truth, even if there is no practi- cal application of it.

Many people today think that theoretical sciences are the least important because they are not practical. But Aristotle argued that the theoretical sciences were the most important for the same reason that practical sciences were more important than productive scienccs: because their " p a y o f f " is more intimate, their reward closer to home.

For they improve our very selves, while practical sciences improve our actions and lives, and productive sciences improve our world. All three are important, but just as our lives are more intimate to us than our external world, so our very selves are even more intimate to us than our lives, our deeds, and certainly more intimate and more important to us than the mate- rial things in our world.

As a very famous and very practical philosopher argued twenty centuries ago, "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his own self? The term "liberal arts" comes from Aristotle: he said that just as a man is called "free" when he exists for his own sake and a "slave" when he exists for the sake of another man, so these studies are called "free" "liber- al" or liberating because they exist for their own sake and not for the sake of anything else.

Logic will prove very useful to you in many ways, but its most important use is simply to help you to sec more clearly what is true and what is false.

Logic alone will not tell you what is true. It will only aid you in discovering Seventeen ways this book is different 9 truth. You also need experience, to get your premises; logic can then draw your conclusions.

Logic will tell you that if all leprechauns are elves and all hobbits arc leprechauns, then it necessarily follows that all hobbits are elves; but logic will not tell you whether all leprechauns are elves, or even whether there are any leprechauns.

I once asked my very Irish neighbor whether she believes in lep- rechauns and she answered, "Of course not But they exist all the same, mind you. To have logical clarity and consistency is admirable. But to have only logi- cal clarity and consistency is pitiful. In fact, it is a mark of insanity, as G. Chesterton pointed out: "If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.

He is not ham- pered by a sense of humour or charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one.

The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his rea- son. Or if a man says that he is Jesus Christ, it is no answer to tell him that the world denies his divinity; for the world denied Christ's.

A small cir- cle is quite as infinite as a large circle; but, though it is quite as infi- nite, it is not so large. In the same way the insane explanation is quite as complete as the sane one, but it is not so large What a little heaven you must inhabit, with angels no bigger than but- terflies! How sad it must be to be God; and an inadequate God! Is there really no life fuller and no love more marvelous than yours? How much happier you would be, how much more of you there would be, if the hammer of a higher God could smash your small cosmos, scatter- ing the stars like spangles, and leave you in the open, free like other men to look up as well as down!

Curing a madman is not arguing with a philosopher; it is casting out a devil. Seventeen ways this book is different There are literally hundreds of logic texts in print, and thousands more out of print.

A premise is false.

The conclusion is assumed in the premises. Something has gone wrong. There are about different informal fallacies. We can categorize them into about four major groups. Fallacies of Irrelevance Ad Hominem. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution. What could a man as ugly as he know about human excellence. I see no need to defend my views against the objections of ignoramuses.

This fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it. This fallacy wrongly shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim. You appeal to authority if you back up your reasoning by saying that it is supported by what some authority says on the subject. Most reasoning of this kind is not fallacious, and much of our knowledge properly comes from listening to authorities. However, appealing to authority as a reason to believe something is fallacious whenever the authority appealed to is not really an authority in this particular subject, when the authority cannot be trusted to tell the truth, when authorities disagree on this subject except for the occasional lone wolf , when the reasoner misquotes the authority, and so forth.

Agreement with popular opinion is not necessarily a reliable sign of truth, and deviation from popular opinion is not necessarily a reliable sign of error, but if you assume it is and do so with enthusiasm, then you are using this fallacy. However, the fallacy occurs when this degree of support is overestimated.

This fallacy consists in assuming that because two things are alike in one or more respects, they are necessarily alike in some other respect. Begging the question is also called arguing in a circle. So, exams serve no purpose.

Assuming something false as a premise of a question. You are hedging if you refine your claim simply to avoid counterevidence and then act as if your revised claim is the same as the original.

Yvonne: I thought we was a boy scout leader. Yvonne: I saw him bidding on things at the high school auction fundraiser. Jones: But McDougal over there is a Scotsman, and he was arrested by his commanding officer for running from the enemy. An equivocation trades upon the use of an ambiguous word or phrase in one of its meanings in one of the propositions of an argument but also in another of its meanings in a second proposition.

But rare books are expensive. Therefore, Really exciting novels are expensive. An amphiboly can occur even when every term in an argument is univocal, if the grammatical construction of a sentence creates its own ambiguity.

Socratic Logic Text Using Method by Kreeft Peter

Therefore, it is unsafe to jog in your pickup truck. This fallacy occurs when we we make a generalization on the basis of insufficient evidence. This may occur when we rely on too small of a sample or an unrepresentative sample to support the generalization.

I baby-sit for one of my professors and his children are spoiled and demanding.

Peter Kreeft

They always have a sexist bias. Straw man.

If the misrepresentation is on purpose, then the Straw Man Fallacy is caused by lying. Speaker: This is ridiculous, fellow members of the city council. I say we should continue to observe Columbus Day, and vote down this resolution that will make the City of Berkeley the laughing stock of the nation. When a conclusion is supported only by extremely weak reasons or by irrelevant reasons, the argument is fallacious and is said to be a Non Sequitur. However, we usually apply the term only when we cannot think of how to label the argument with a more specific fallacy name.

Any deductively invalid inference is a non sequitur if it also very weak when assessed by inductive standards. Every time you drive in a car you are taking a risk. In a slippery slope argument, a course of action is rejected because, with little or no evidence, one insists that it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends. The slippery slope involves an acceptance of a succession of events without direct evidence that this course of events will happen.

An income tax at the state level is just a first step to communism. But begin to recognize and avoid these. For a larger list of awesome fallacies, read here. What a hit!

Non-declarative sentences are not propositions. Find it on Scholar. Request removal from index. Revision history. This entry has no external links.

Add one. Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server Configure custom proxy use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy. Configure custom resolver. Essays on the Philosophy of Socrates. Benson Hugh ed. The Principles of Inductive Logic. John Venn - - New York: Chelsea Pub.

Study Guide. Robert Baum - - Oup Usa.An excellent introduction to Classical or Aristotelian Logic. It is somewhat similar in logic: But we seek riches, or wisdom, or health, in order to be happier. God, self, and world. This alienated mind was described memo- rably by C. Non-declarative sentences are not proposi- tions. But we can also use false propositions in good reasoning. If p is true and q is true, then "if p then q" is true.

For today, most people find the traditional language about "unnatural acts" not only politically incorrect and offensive, but literally incomprehensible.