You are not a philosopher if you can't read this.
You may have a complex taste for literature and even read Kant on the side but if you can't formalise your thoughts there is no possibility for you to be able to actually craft knowledge which can be identified as such.
From the standpoint of the advancement of knowing, a thinker that won't formalise may as well be a stoner looking up to the stars, or, even worse a Glass Bead Game Player.
I can read it. But how advanced are you, actually? This is the baby stuff.
Not OP, I took a class on this stuff in college and really enjoyed it. How do I get into the advanced stuff? I've tried getting into math proofs, but my math is sorta garbage, whereas I did really well on the symbolic logic proofs.
It's not that you are bad at math. You are bad at harder things
If you want mathematics then give it time and practice, as well finding some peers.
What elitist math losers don't want you to know is that math is simply precise language, and much like any spoken language, fluency comes from familiarity, which is a function of time and immersion.
Their first course of action to protect their special, exclusive identity is often a tactic like that seen in OP, where they inflate the capacity of their ability as well as suggest any navigable path there-toward is non-existent for the un-anointed. If they succeed in the transmission of these lies, then they can prevent you from ever starting on the road, thereby fulfilling the contentions they made at the outset. Never forget this when dealing with these uni-faceted creeps.
What a grating display of peak pseudery, coupled with shameless ignorance.
You are moronic. Condolences to your parents (who failed)
Your condescending diction sucks, bro-ham. You need, by my estimate, further, as we've stated, previously, immersion, or, again, as we've said, time—I'd, however, for you, recommend suicide.
So what? You can suck my balls. By your butthurt reaction I can tell I hit the nail right on the fricking head therefore I WAS right in (You)ing you ya fat goose.
literacy doesn't even any kind of a writer make
What I said is specifically that math was not some separate thing from formal logic, so the guy was not good at formal logic yet bad at math. The guy was bad at hard things. Learn to fricking read
Math is more akin to poetry written in such language. Immersion and practice will help you to speak and understand it, but literacy does not a poet make.
I don't know but there's a bunch of formal logics and what's most interesting about them to me is what they let you express, and their semantics, but if what you're into is proofs then you can focus on that if you prefer. Anyway, you should at least look into the following stuff (you've probably done the first two)
>Sentential logic
>Predicate logic + First-order logic
>Syllogistic logic (for historical purposes)
>Inductive logic
>Modal logic
>Tense logic
>Deontic logic
>Intensional logics
>Three-valued and fuzzy logics
>Paraconsistent logics
>Free logics
>Relation algebra
>Lambda calculus
>Calculus of individuals (logic of mereology)
>Plural logic and plural predication logic
>Type theory
>Higher-order logics
>a thinker that won't formalise may as well be a stoner looking up to the stars
Nobody actually cares about logical formalization and at least in math it's frowned upon. Natural language is easier to understand, looks better, and retains writer style.
Logic is a field of philosophy first and foremost - you don't need to be a mathematician to do it. There are areas of logic that belong to math exclusively, but you can avoid those (e.g. Category Theory). What areas did you study in your logic class? If it was predicate/sentential logic then the next step would probably be basic set theory and modal logic. Stay away from intuitionist logic and non-standard logics, it's homosexualy computer science bullshit. If you want to get good at math, which is a separate issue, then you should practice math. Usually you start with calculation based math like algebra/pre-calc/calc then move on to proof based math. However, you could also start working through a book like "Proofs" by Jay Cummings, which iirc doesn't require any fancy prior math knowledge. It's one of the better proofs intros I've read, although it's writing is reddity.
Math people are usually pretty helpful and encourage others that enough practice will make them good at math in my experience. It's engineering college students who are elitist about math despite imploding the moment a problem can't be done with intro Matlab code, because they've been told all their life they're "special" for being able to do basic algebra.
Math is a separate thing from formal logic. They're two different disciplines albeit very co-dependent.
>math
>math
>math
It’s ridiculous how you cannot apply Philosophy and Logic to see that you‘re doing formal maths and not philosophy.
I bet you’re an Anglo you absolute subhuman soj eater
Nietzsche had no use for systematic analysis. Gtfo.
> You are not a philosopher if you can't read this.
doesn't mean you are a philosopher if you can read this, you featherless biped
>fawning over symbolic notation
Peak Dunning-Kruger pseud.
lost in a world of symbols. sad.
kill anglos, behead anglos, etc... etc...
kill continentals, kill moron that can't think logically, behead low IQs, etc... etc...
A more "efficient" (not really) way of writing doesn't make your philosophy any better. Analytics are irrelevant because most of them are too stupid and autistic to even realise something this basic.
NTA but the point of symbolic abstraction isn't efficiency, it's precision.
This is literally 3rd week material for any intro to theoretical math college course. You would shit yourself and cry if you tried to read Kant.
>le symbol pushing
Anyone can learn math rules.
I’m a based English chad. I’m not reading that homosexualy Greek shit
post more pics of your gattos, friend
>The Disaster Artist
>Rich Dad Poor Dad
>The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Frick
>Russell Brand
>Godel, Escher, and Bach
Holy cringe tourist
Wrong. Philosophy is with attitude not logic. But how can I still be impish yet still have more wisdom than a lot of you? Perhaps because Nietzsche was right. Nothing exists in this flat universe except pain. A hardened world with flavorless husks, it's just as dragon's dogma said.
Nietzsche f.e. was not a philosopher.
By training he was a philologist, but even the most autistic analytic would admit his work is a tremendously important part of the philosophical canon.
To the literary canon maybe.
I just owned you without even speaking. Reading maybe you did own me but it's all in the rebuttal
>Philosophy.
Start with the Greeks and finish with the Romans, that's what I say.
You are not a philosopher if you can't fluently read Ancient Greek, Latin, German and French.
Analytic philosophy isn't even philosophy, it's math and linguistics LARP. This trash belongs on IQfy, no here.
>you are not X unless you conform to the preconceived notions I believe apply to me
how does it feel being a psych textbook example
its just basic logic
I guess that's why you're stuck in a book hazeus
And yet you failed the underlying basic logic of establishing the boundaries of what being a philosopher means.
Lmao I can read this and I've only ever studied math and computer science, not philosophy.
Stop with the natural language LARP and embrace the rigor.
Any philosopher today who is ignorant of mathematics is utterly deficient and incapable of contributing anything interesting. That doesn't have anything to do with skill at symbolic substitution algorithms, though.
I can assure you that mathematics has a hard limit in philosophy
Why are the ones that get filtered by logic worshipping Nietzsche so much?
I can read it but I choose not to.
A philosopher is just someone who loves and seeks wisdom/enlightenment, it's not some elite club.
Formal logic is very nice. I've only read the Tractatus, what else should I read from analytic philosophy?
>t. Mathgay
Philosophy is not some economic beast of personal success that you display on a wall for other people
Luckily, philosophers need produce nothing at all because by virtue of morphic resonance and collective consciousness anybody that pursues wisdom(a philosopher) raises the species up without doing anything more than thinking and experiencing.
>Glass Bead Game Player
Literally me
Are you implying stoners looking at the stars are not doing philosophy?
You are wrong.
mathematicians = fat frick who get to drive cool car
continental philosophers = fit muscular frick who have to walk
analytic philosopher = fat frick in a canoe on land
If you've learned over a half dozen instantiations of modern formal logic, but you've never read Aristotle's Organon cover to cover, then you're not only not a philosopher, but you're a sophist of the worst kind.
Granted
All writing is literature and truth is a value to be bought and sold.
Math is a must.
What exactly does OP's pic say about reality?