>>24870365
Tried to post links to two images but it wouldn't let me post it. So I upload them instead.
This is the table of contents for Logic by Isaac Watts. The page numbers don't match though.
4chan Search
17 results for "c0d5c153c8af1dc0df6b6caa4881fc4b"
I will now proceed to post some links and materials for people who want to learn more about this subject. Feel free to add to the list.
https://youtu.be/8I72ptEOgug
https://youtu.be/fREgfDIlSPc
https://amateurlogician.com/concepts/
https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt (table of contents in picrel)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sum_of_Logic
https://youtu.be/8I72ptEOgug
https://youtu.be/fREgfDIlSPc
https://amateurlogician.com/concepts/
https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt (table of contents in picrel)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sum_of_Logic
>>24696163
Which grammar is? For the Trivium the grammar is Latin and Greek. I looked up your book and it's about English. Also grammar in the past was more of a philosophical subject, with stuff like what you see in picrel.
That's from this book: https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt
Here's another old book:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa_Grammatica
Which grammar is? For the Trivium the grammar is Latin and Greek. I looked up your book and it's about English. Also grammar in the past was more of a philosophical subject, with stuff like what you see in picrel.
That's from this book: https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt
Here's another old book:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa_Grammatica
>>514082847
Language and all that it conveys is divided into grammar, logic and rhetoric. All languages have these aspects. Knowledge of these three subjects is suppressed for the masses. What you're thinking of is rhetoric. There is no dichotomy between rich grammar and rich rhetoric.
https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt
Language and all that it conveys is divided into grammar, logic and rhetoric. All languages have these aspects. Knowledge of these three subjects is suppressed for the masses. What you're thinking of is rhetoric. There is no dichotomy between rich grammar and rich rhetoric.
https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt
>>23181711
Language and all that it conveys is divided into grammar, logic and rhetoric. All languages have these aspects. Knowledge of these three subjects is suppressed for the masses. What you're thinking of is rhetoric. There is no dichotomy between rich grammar and rich rhetoric.
https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt
Language and all that it conveys is divided into grammar, logic and rhetoric. All languages have these aspects. Knowledge of these three subjects is suppressed for the masses. What you're thinking of is rhetoric. There is no dichotomy between rich grammar and rich rhetoric.
https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt
>>24663526
You have no idea what you're talking about, at all.
https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt
¤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
You have no idea what you're talking about, at all.
https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt
¤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 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
>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
>>16753952
table of contents in picrel
Euclid's Elements is not like the math we are taught, which is a hollowed out version of math, this is the real thing, it gives you the actual foundation of math in deductive logic, working your way up from very basic concepts or observations, giving you a thorough comprehension of math, rather than rote memorization, and not just math but also logic, which is transferable to other areas of life, because it teaches you how to reason, how to think.
>>>/pol/513091928
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/512229253/
>>>/t/1344565
>>>/lit/24644097
>>>/lit/24644107
table of contents in picrel
Euclid's Elements is not like the math we are taught, which is a hollowed out version of math, this is the real thing, it gives you the actual foundation of math in deductive logic, working your way up from very basic concepts or observations, giving you a thorough comprehension of math, rather than rote memorization, and not just math but also logic, which is transferable to other areas of life, because it teaches you how to reason, how to think.
>>>/pol/513091928
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/512229253/
>>>/t/1344565
>>>/lit/24644097
>>>/lit/24644107
>>512662441
It's not indoctrination. Indoctrination is being conditioned with WHAT to think, which is something very different from being given the tools for HOW to think, which is the Trivium. As Brave New World says "words without reason".
>'They'll have that repeated forty or fifty times more before they wake; then again on Thursday, and again on Saturday. A hundred and twenty times three times a week for thirty months. After which they go on to a more advanced lesson.'
>Roses and electric shocks, the khaki of Deltas and a whiff of asafoetida--wedded indissolubly before the child can speak. But wordless conditioning is crude and wholesale; cannot bring home the finer distinctions, cannot inculcate the more complex courses of behaviour. For that there must be words, but words without reason. In brief, hypnopædia.
>'The greatest moralizing and socializing force of all time.'
>The students took it down in their little books. Straight from the horse's mouth.
>Once more the Director touched the switch.
>'...so frightfully clever,' the soft, insinuating, indefatigable voice was saying. 'I'm really awfully glad I'm a Beta, because...'
>Not so much like drops of water, though water, it is true, can wear holes in the hardest granite; rather, drops of liquid sealing-wax, drops that adhere, incrust, incorporate themselves with what they fall on, till finally the rock is all one scarlet blob.
>'Till at last the child's mind is these suggestions, and the sum of the suggestions is the child's mind. And not the child's mind only. The adult's mind too--all his life long. The mind that judges and desires and decides--made up of these suggestions. But all these suggestions are our suggestions!' The Director almost shouted in his triumph. 'Suggestions from the State.'
https://gutenberg.ca/ebooks/huxleya-bravenewworld/huxleya-bravenewworld-00-e.html#chapter02
read:
https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt
see picrel for table of contents
It's not indoctrination. Indoctrination is being conditioned with WHAT to think, which is something very different from being given the tools for HOW to think, which is the Trivium. As Brave New World says "words without reason".
>'They'll have that repeated forty or fifty times more before they wake; then again on Thursday, and again on Saturday. A hundred and twenty times three times a week for thirty months. After which they go on to a more advanced lesson.'
>Roses and electric shocks, the khaki of Deltas and a whiff of asafoetida--wedded indissolubly before the child can speak. But wordless conditioning is crude and wholesale; cannot bring home the finer distinctions, cannot inculcate the more complex courses of behaviour. For that there must be words, but words without reason. In brief, hypnopædia.
>'The greatest moralizing and socializing force of all time.'
>The students took it down in their little books. Straight from the horse's mouth.
>Once more the Director touched the switch.
>'...so frightfully clever,' the soft, insinuating, indefatigable voice was saying. 'I'm really awfully glad I'm a Beta, because...'
>Not so much like drops of water, though water, it is true, can wear holes in the hardest granite; rather, drops of liquid sealing-wax, drops that adhere, incrust, incorporate themselves with what they fall on, till finally the rock is all one scarlet blob.
>'Till at last the child's mind is these suggestions, and the sum of the suggestions is the child's mind. And not the child's mind only. The adult's mind too--all his life long. The mind that judges and desires and decides--made up of these suggestions. But all these suggestions are our suggestions!' The Director almost shouted in his triumph. 'Suggestions from the State.'
https://gutenberg.ca/ebooks/huxleya-bravenewworld/huxleya-bravenewworld-00-e.html#chapter02
read:
https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt
see picrel for table of contents
>>512233877
You need to learn it because it expands your mind. Grammar is not just language, it's how we structure our thoughts. It was/is taught as part of a classical education. And that was Latin and Greek grammar. If you want to acquire the tools of thought this is what you do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivial_school
To get a sense of what grammar is/used to be check out this book.
https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt
You need to learn it because it expands your mind. Grammar is not just language, it's how we structure our thoughts. It was/is taught as part of a classical education. And that was Latin and Greek grammar. If you want to acquire the tools of thought this is what you do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivial_school
To get a sense of what grammar is/used to be check out this book.
https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt
>>511413831
a) you know nothing about logic
b) you're brainwashed
c) only people who haven't studied any logic say that you can't study logic and that it's innate
d) you most certainly can study logic
e) study logic
https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt
a) you know nothing about logic
b) you're brainwashed
c) only people who haven't studied any logic say that you can't study logic and that it's innate
d) you most certainly can study logic
e) study logic
https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt
>>22994544
a) you know nothing about logic
b) you're brainwashed
c) only people who haven't studied any logic say that you can't study logic and that it's innate
d) you most certainly can study logic
e) study logic
https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt
a) you know nothing about logic
b) you're brainwashed
c) only people who haven't studied any logic say that you can't study logic and that it's innate
d) you most certainly can study logic
e) study logic
https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt
>>510174278
The table of contents is missing but it's here. The page numbers don't match.
The table of contents is missing but it's here. The page numbers don't match.
>>507289248
Written by a female in the 20th century.
Written by a male priest in the 18th century:
https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt
Written by a female in the 20th century.
Written by a male priest in the 18th century:
https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt