>>514765014
No. Grammar is important for learning how to think. Study Latin. >>514762289

https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt

https://youtu.be/m8MyllahXgw

https://www.youtube.com/@informedchristians6982/videos

>>16771694

https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt

https://moodle.scnu.edu.cn/pluginfile.php/820759/mod_resource/content/1/Harry%20J.%20Gensler_2017_Introduction%20to%20Logic%20%283rd%20ed.%29-Routledge-reader.pdf

https://courses.umass.edu/phil110-gmh/MAIN/IHome-5.htm

https://math.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Mathematical_Logic_and_Proof

forallx.openlogicproject.org

¤Institutes of Grammar by Priscian of Caesarea

¤Summa Grammatica by Roger Bacon

¤Summa Logicae by William of Ockham

¤Logic or the Right Use of Reason in the Inquiry After Truth by Isaac Watts

¤Port-Royal Logic by Antoine Arnauld and Pierre Nicole

¤The Organon by Aristotle

¤Rhetoric by Aristotle

¤Isagoge by Porphyry

¤Lectures on Logic by Immanuel Kant

¤Lectures of Logic by G.W.F. Hegel

¤Metalogicon by John of Salisbury

¤Rules for the Direction of the Mind by René Descartes

>>24656364
>I'm reading aristotle rn, almost done with vol 1.
Which book are you reading?
>I just picked up Farnsworth's classical english rhetoric, it looks bussin af.
Thanks for the recommendation, someone mentioned that in another thread but I don't think they had read it. Check out this book.
https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt
table of contents in picrel

The idea is that Elements teaches logic because it starts by listing definitions of terms and simple concepts which are to be taken as given. Then it deduces other more complex concepts from these, presenting deductive arguments that prove them. And then it presents arguments for other yet more complex concepts deduced from those concepts, and so on. This way of building complex ideas (theorems) from simple ideas (axioms) is logic and it's a way of thinking that's transferable to other areas of life. It's building knowledge from scratch spelling out the premises and the conclusions.

There is no reason to wait, you can start right now. The first thing you learn is how to draw a perfect like-sided triangle, using only a compass and a straight edge, ie a ruler with no markings. Do you know how to do that? Then it tells you how you can know that the sides are exactly the same length. For the whole book you are only allowed to use a compass and a straight edge.

for drawing

https://www.desmos.com/geometry

After drawing try to give a deductive argument for how you can know that the sides are the same length.

After trying on your own the solution is for example in these four links below.

http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/bookI/propI1.html

https://elements.ratherthanpaper.com/1.1

(edit: !!!SPOILER ALERT!!!
I thought maybe blacktexting the youtube links would prevent the images from being shown, but no. Spoiler alert, don't hover over these two blacktexts before you try to draw the triangle.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLlThlqCFeg&list=PL2V76rajvC1I2TrbPMRLcTqhdcbha4sDE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q29U3_2PIiM&list=PLrkQ3hzZrc4j9gT0z--_CiFzQLeVb32hQ

>>24656364
>I'm reading aristotle rn, almost done with vol 1.
Which book are you reading?
>I just picked up Farnsworth's classical english rhetoric, it looks bussin af.
Thanks for the recommendation, someone mentioned that in another thread but I don't think they had read it. Check out this book.
https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt
table of contents in picrel

The idea is that Elements teaches logic because it starts by listing definitions of terms and simple concepts which are to be taken as given. Then it deduces other more complex concepts from these, presenting deductive arguments that prove them. And then it presents arguments for other yet more complex concepts deduced from those concepts, and so on. This way of building complex ideas (theorems) from simple ideas (axioms) is logic and it's a way of thinking that's transferable to other areas of life. It's building knowledge from scratch spelling out the premises and the conclusions.

There is no reason to wait, you can start right now. The first thing you learn is how to draw a perfect like-sided triangle, using only a compass and a straight edge, ie a ruler with no markings. Do you know how to do that? Then it tells you how you can know that the sides are exactly the same length. For the whole book you are only allowed to use a compass and a straight edge.

for drawing

https://www.desmos.com/geometry

After drawing try to give a deductive argument for how you can know that the sides are the same length.

After trying on your own the solution is for example in these links.

http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/bookI/propI1.html

https://elements.ratherthanpaper.com/1.1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLlThlqCFeg&list=PL2V76rajvC1I2TrbPMRLcTqhdcbha4sDE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q29U3_2PIiM&list=PLrkQ3hzZrc4j9gT0z--_CiFzQLeVb32hQ

>>512203515
Truth seeking is good. There are different ways of seeking truth, as Hinduism recognizes in its four yogas. One of these is through words, ie reading, discussing etc. For this path it's absolutely essential to have a foundation of grammar, logic and rhetoric, ie the Trivium.

https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Yogas

>>24599839
You know nothing about logic and are just spouting the notions you're brainwashed with. Secondly you're making various assumptions which I said nothing about in the OP. There was nothing about rebelling etc. Right now you are one of those people who have not studied any logic at all, and know nothing about logic, and yet have many opinions about logic and about what logic is, all of which are utterly uninteresting. Read this book.

https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt

>>511320658
Here's the table of contents for that book, which for some reason is missing in that file. The page numbers don't match though.

>>509657275
Yup, old books are were the good stuff is. You're gonna love this one:

https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt

Here's another old logic book an anon recommended, I haven't begun reading it yet, seems similar to the first link. I'm going to check out the book I linked about geometry too, Euclidean geometry seems very interesting because it's all about logic, that's why they removed it from public schools in the 1950s, they phased out all logic from public school to make people easy to manipulate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port-Royal_Logic
https://books.google.com/books?id=IcgAAAAAMAAJ

>>509649110
The table of contents is missing but I found one online, the page numbers aren't matching though.

>>508076799
>https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt

This is an old book written by a priest in the 18th century. Back then grammar, logic and rhetoric were studied together as one subject. It was called The Trivium, these were the first three of the seven liberal arts, which was the so-called classical education. Logic today has been divorced from grammar and rhetoric, but you need all three. These three subjects are the tools of thought. You can't know how to think correctly without having studied them.

youtu.be/AOcy6RHw7A8

For some reason that file doesn't have a table of contents, but I found one online. The page numbers don't fit though.

The grammar they studied was Latin and Greek grammar, that's why I'm going to study some Latin and Greek, I'm starting with Latin with the book Wheelock's Latin.

>>507444463
Since when is the grammar in the Bible the same as in modern everyday English? Does "he died for your sins" make any sense at all grammatically in modern everyday English? Anyway if you're interested in grammar and religion I recommend: https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt
Table of contents is for some reason missing, but I found one, it's picrel, however page numbers don't fit.