Language, truth and logic

What Hacker News says

1. wannabebaristaMar 2022
   For logic: Language, Truth and Logic by AJ Ayer. It is an account that tried to introduce logical positivism to the English speaking world after the author visited Vienna in the 1930s. While logical positivism didn’t pan out, the book is full of the excitement of resolving multiple perennial philosophical problems all at once. The author’s enthusiasm is infectious.
   thread
2. danamitMar 2022
   My list:

   * Quantum theory

   * String theory

   * Lenin's works except The State and Revolution

   * Muqaddimah of Ibn Khaldun (by Ibn Khaldun)

   * Vienna Circle's works especially Language, Truth, and Logic (many skip this one)

   Show morethread
3. hilbert42Feb 2021
   Here are the remaining texts. The tally is now 28, I forgot to include several that are important, there's also several 'afterthoughts'.

   19. Psychopathology of everyday life—Sigmund Freud. This text may seem a strange inclusion but some of Freud's writings are considered philosophical works. Here, I refer you only to Chapter 1 titled The forgetting of Proper Names. It's only a dozen or so pages so it's a quick read. Whether Freud's analyses is correct or wrong, or that modern science has superseded his work is immaterial here. It's importance to philosophers is that it vividly conveys how a great mind broaches a subject and tackles the analysis and comes to conclusions (it's a rare and insightful opportunity to see a philosopher's mind at work). If you are keen also read Chapter II about the Forgetting of Foreign Words.

   20, 21, 22. The Logic of Scientific Discovery | The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol-I Plato | The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol-II Hegel & Marx — Karl Popper These books represent only a fraction of Popper's output, albeit influential ones. Popper was a highly influential 20th C. philosopher and his fields are many and diverse—from biology, to the scientific method, to the structure of society, to exploring the subject of knowledge—critical rationalism, etc. If you're already studying HPS then it's likely The Logic of Scientific Discovery is one of your curriculum texts. It's here that Popper argues the notion that made him so widely known in the scientific world—that is, scientific methodology should be based on falsifiability, as experiments cannot prove a theory no matter how many times they're repeated but reproducible experiments can refute or disprove a theory.

   The Open Society and Its Enemies is a two volume set. For the moment limit yourself to Vol. I (Vol. II is mentioned to avoid confusion). Like the Austrian School of libertarian economists (Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek), Popper was heavily influenced by his experience of totalitarianism—communist and fascist regimes before and during WWII, thus his antiauthoritarian views. He argues in favor of the free market, free trade, egalitarianism and liberalism and libertarianism thought. In Volume I he aims criticism at the Platonic concept of the benevolent philosopher king who rules through wisdom and experience. Popper views such rule as totalitarianism even if the dictator/despot is benevolent and wise. He argues that a tolerant society must be tolerant of intolerance—if not, then it too is intolerant. That said, matters aren't quite that simple, he then leads us to the paradox of tolerance, which states that if a society sets no limit on its tolerance then eventually the intolerant will destroy it.

   Given current politics where both sides of the political divide are becoming more belligerent and intolerant of each other by the moment, Popper's views in The Open Society and Its Enemies are both strongly argued and very prescient in our troubled times.

   (Note: in my comments on The Republic, my suggestion was that one should only confine oneself to Book I. This was for good reason; as later in Book IV Plato develops the notions of society's guardians and philosopher king and this isn't relevant to the matter of formal argument. What's notable here about Book IV popping up here is that a common characteristic of philosophical thought and argument is that new works builds heavily upon past thought. Thus, understanding older philosophical arguments is so important; it's why we still consider Greek philosophy a crucial starting point. Moreover, it illustrates the why one should progress through a formally structured curriculum. As with any study, to stay on course and to progress quickly certain topics are essential prerequisites.

   23.

   Being and Nothingness—Jean-Paul Sartre* This text is one of the pillars of 20th C. existentialism, it's considered a true tour de force in the subject. It deals with one's role in the world—of being an existential human being and everything that implies. I haven't time to delve further here as I'd need to illustrate with longwinded examples. However, I'd suggest one should learn the essential basics of existentialism given that its philosophy is so ingrained in 20th Century thinking. The text's likely too long for an introductory course, so one could consult a précised synopsis (reckon it'd still be considered a 'legitimate' learning exercise (I can hear my once lecturers wincing and grinding teeth at the thought!).

   24. No Exit - (Fr. Huis clos)—Jean-Paul Sartre The French title translates into English as 'In Camera' although it's better known as No Exit in the Anglophone world. No Exit is a famed but short [hence quickly read] play by Sartre with an existential undercurrent. It's an overstatement to say the play has a plot, rather it describes a situational existential existence more akin to, say, an extreme version of Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot. The play's importance to philosophy is that it examines the human condition—of existence—from the most extreme existential perspective possible. The play depicts a state of hell for those involved. Imagine yourself trapped forever in a room with people you hate or with whom you disagree but with never any possibility of escape. It's an extremely thought-provoking work.

   25. Formal/Symbolic Logic Texts I can't provide a list and do justice to it. There are too many and I'm not conversant with the latest ones. However, you must study Formal Logic as, at minimum, it's necessary rigor for one to develop logical thinking (there are also many other reasons). It teaches one to accurately comprehend thus determine the meaning of what is written within texts. Often one's comprehension of written text is superficial and imprecise thus one's perceived or interpreted understanding of it is either a poor chimera of the original or perhaps altogether wrong.

   Formal logic provides one with tools—symbolic terminology, methodologies and mathematical logic to analyse statements and propositions then reduce them into logical arguments. Sentences are broken down and atomized into subjects, predicates etc. using true/false truth tables along with other formal procedures. Advanced techniques lead to a detailed Semantic theory of truth as formulated by a long line of logicians from George Boole, to Russell, to Wittgenstein through to Alfred Tarski and others. Formal/symbolic logic is a major and necessary extension to Boolean logic, here's a glimpse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols

   (Note: Logic, in its various forms, is a sub branch of mathematical philosophy of which of itself is an enormously broad subject from before the Ancient Greeks onward to modern mathematical thought of Russell, Wittgenstein, Kurt Gödel (his incompleteness theorem) and numerous others. It's likely this topic is covered in your HPS curriculum, thus it's a redundant exercise for me to do so. In addition, I'm not a mathematician by trade, hence if I offered further advice I'd be doing the subject an injustice.

   26. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/index.html Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is, I'd reckon, the most comprehensive philosophy resource on the web. It covers almost every phil. topic imaginable from ancient Greece to HPS and everything else. Its breath of knowledge intimidates me, in fact almost everyone. Don't let that stop you using it as a primary reference source.

   Here are some important mainstream topics not covered in my list that you'll eventually encounter (IMHO, they aren't necessary HPS prerequisites): Geek Epicureanism/epicurean philosophy, Epictetus and other Greek philosophers, Thomas Aquinas, Friedrich Nietzsche, Mary Wollstonecraft, Baruch Spinoza, Georg W.F. Hegel, Karl Marx and 20th Century philosophers including, Martin Heidegger, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, John Rawls, John Ralston Saul and others. (Surely, I've missed some key names but there's plenty here to start with.)

   An afterthought, perhaps I should have included these two texts:

   27. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (aka TLP & Treatise on Logic and Philosophy) — Ludwig Wittgenstein In TLP, Wittgenstein concerns himself with the 'relationships' between logistics of language and reality, how this 'understanding' defines the scope or limits of science. This book has had considerable influence on 20th Century philosophers (Russell, G.E Moore and many others). Note: understanding language semantics and how it plays a role in philosophical thinking, perception and logic is a major aspect of 20th C. philosophy.

   28. Language, Truth, and Logic — A.J Ayer I initially omitted this book, as later Ayer was critical of it stating that it contains mistakes of his youth. On second thoughts, I've included it, as the way Ayer explains language, the logic of language structures—propositions, statements (such as tautologies being necessarily true and thus don't need verification), etc. had a defining influence on me (in that they sunk into my grey matter first time). However, I acknowledge this is not sound logic (my only defense is that it was an easy text to digest).

   Show morethread
4. atlas1428Sep 2018
   - The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins

   - Godel Escher Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas Hofstadter

   - Language, Truth, and Logic by A. J. Ayer

   - Thinking in Systems: A Primer by Donella Meadows

   Books that serve as investment philosophy guides for those who've developed a habit of saving money but are looking for the "next step" in building more wealth. From the mind of one of the greatest investors of all time:

   - The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham (get the annotated version with an epilogue written by Warren Buffett!)

   - The Essays of Warren Buffett: Lessons for Corporate America

   A book that discusses what matters most in your life from a resource-allocation, measurable results standpoint (family, etc.):

   - How Will You Measure Your Life by Clayton Christensen

   A book I read 10 years ago that forever changed the way I manage productivity and organization both at work and in my personal life:

   - Getting Things Done by David Allen

   Books that show that our universe is just as crazy, if not crazier, than science fiction:

   - Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy

   - Quantum Chance: Nonlocality, Teleportation and Other Quantum Marvels

   - ..and so on with intersecting topics!

   Not to mention, I love trying to have as deep an understanding as I can by reading highly technical textbooks on cosmology, gravitation, and quantum physics.

   Show morethread
5. a_humeanMay 2016
   I would check out Philosophy Bites, which is a podcast interviewing active research philosophers in 15-20 minutes about their topics.

   http://www.philosophybites.com/

   Check out Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is free and edited by active research philosophers on pretty much every major topic and figure.

   http://plato.stanford.edu/

   Naming and Necessity by Kripke is about reference and the causal theory of reference, but it assume a decent amount (in case that is what you were asking for specifically).

   The Very Short Introductions series have some really good booklets if you want quick ways to jump into a topic.

   A few other books:

   B Russell The Problems of Philosophy. OUP (dated, but a classic general introduction)

   Simon Blackburn Think. Oxford (nice general introduction)

   Tim Crane The Mechanical Mind. Penguin (Nice introduction to phil of mind)

   A J Ayer Language, Truth, and Logic. Penguin (dated, but a classic)

   D Hume Enquiries

   T Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Univ of Chicago Press

   Show morethread
6. hilbert42Mar 2025
   [This requires two goes so I hope it works.]

   As time is running out to post here there are few points I wish to mention.

   Your last reply left some issues dangling and it's clear my comments have left you with an inaccurate view about my position about several matters. Note the problem mainly rests with me for shortcutting explanations, also forums such as HN make it difficult to put complex arguments let alone have them resolve cleanly.

   Second thoughts made me post this late comment. Earlier, just after your post, I made three separate attempts at replying but aborted them because of their excessive length. Each time I had to shorten what could easily pass as a multipart blog and before it was finished it'd become clear it was too long and would have bombed out if I'd tried to post it—and that's after I'd deleted the largest part which was about mathematics† and its relationship to/overlap with philosophy. (Editing comment so that it's difficult to misinterpret its contents and still keep it short and succinct is difficult—at least it is for me.)

   You're probably asking why I would commit so much effort to reply to a comment. There are many reasons and I can't mention them all but I've extracted and précised a few from the longer draft. Perhaps the most significant reason is that whenever I've made a general comment that lacks detail or references there are always those who either misinterpret the message or use its limitations to lever their contrary position.

   There's nothing wrong with protagonists leveraging their propositions but in any discussion it makes sense to put one's points as clear and as succinctly as possible. With mathematics and science/technology putting one's case is comparatively straightforward as equations and accepted facts (scientific evidence/the scientific method) provide a solid framework from which to state one's case. In physics, whilst opinions often differ wildly and despite controversies such as the relevance of the Scientific Method and Popper's Falsifiability/Refutability rage on, consensus is often reached even if it takes decades. There comes the realization the properties of nature are immutable, Nature doesn't give a damn about physicists' opinions. Physicists can't argue when Nature says m(e) = ~9.10938371393×10^−31 kg. In the end it's no-contest, Nature's position always wins out.

   On the orher hand, things are rather different with philosophy for multiple reasons. With philosophy a wide and diverse range of opinions are to be expected due to its inherent nature and structure. In short, philosophical concepts are usually founded on earlier frameworks which of themselves have no universally-accepted 'truths'. Moreover, with philosophy, linguistics, semantics and even its epistemological underpinnings—the theory of knowledge—continue to be subject of argument. In Principia Ethica G.E. Moore questions the foundations of ethics. One can't put a measure on "good", similarly, one can't explain or convey a sense of "yellow" to someone who's been blind from birth. In his books Language, Truth, and Logic and The Problem of Knowledge A. J. Ayer continues in a similar vein to the effect that sentences about ethics and ethical constructs are more emotional than propositional.

   And these issues are still being debated. Simply, if one can't anchor and measure a "notion" or "concept" then one's pretty well stuffed to define it as an axiom. That's not to say we should give up worrying about ethics, as you'd know we don't. You'd also note that arguments about these matters get very messy.

   It's clear my roots are anchored in the analytical tradition. And from what you've mentioned, the factors that have shaped your philosophical views are based more on metaphysical lines, thus I doubt you and I would ever fully agree on certain topics. There's nothing wrong with that and it's to be expected. That's how philosophy works in practice and it's always worked that way (except perhaps in some parts of analytical philosophy such as formal logic which is more akin to mathematics).

   That there's a wide divergence of opinion over philosophical matters is an important aspect of philosophy as it shapes the way the discipline is conducted in practice, it's also a weakness. I've had to omit detailed discussion about that here but it has an important bearing on these comments. Human factors shape one's worldview and here our worldviews are different—they've not only shaped what we've commented upon but also they've influenced the emphasis we've placed on what we've said.

   Some HN stories are such that comments have a clearly defined focus and that attracts those of a certain ilk, they pinpoint and confine comments to within narrow bands. In those situations I'll do likewise. However, that's not the situation with most stories on HN it's why I assume a general audience, I thus take the position that participants hold a broad spectrum of views—from those with little or no understanding of the issues through to experts and professionals.

   The quandry is how best to respond, there's always the dilemma of how to best pitch my post, and my usual solution is to write to the LCD on grounds that everybody will understand what I've written.

   I'm mindful to keep comments short and at a high-level (thus they lack rigor). That's the intention but all too frequently I'll get bogged down in detail. Also, short and simple replies sans detail come with the advantage that they'll capture more readers (very few ever read long posts, I know from experience).

   Unfortunately, the shortcomings of a simplistic, overly-general comment invites criticism from the cognoscente. Here, I'm reminded of the parable Try to please all and you'll please none. Moreover, commenting on political and philosophical topics is to enter a minefield, one cops it from all directions—broad sweeping generalizations are criticized for having no depth, more involved comments (especially those without strong supporting evidence) attract those with contrary views who attack the lack of rigor, and long detailed analyzes are rarely read.

   Essentially, when discussing these topics one can't win. I'll use your posts to illustrate the problem.

   I'll start with how utilitarianism entered the discussion, The HN story wasn't directly about philosophy but rather "The tyranny of apps': those without smartphones are unfairly penalised", which raised a valid social concern that a section of society would be disadvantaged if apps predominated and "…all the brick and mortar close."

   The retort to that was "Look at it this way: should the rest of us with smartphones pay for that bank office?", which is both a valid argument and an-all-too-common response from those who don't think they've a social obligation and responsibly to help pay for or support society's disadvantaged (this is far from an isolated example).

   My response implied the matter was of ethical concern and that social responsibility was an issue, thus one would need to examine the history and I said many (but not all) issues could be found in utilitarian concepts (which is fact). My comment was of a general nature and in keeping with the granularity of the story and that's when things came off the rails. Your attack on my general comment about utilitarianism sidetracked the key issue. I'm not deliberately singling you out for criticism but I'd contend that what happened here is typical and a commonplace problem on the web and social media.

   Whether I was precicely correct or not in my comment about utilitarianism oughtn't have been an issue because its intention was clear—that about social responsibly and that its history that goes back several hundred years is important for context.

   BTW, as I alluded to in my subsequent post, I was well aware utilitarian principles are hotly contested. What i didn't point out was that the curriculum that I'd studied under spent an inordinate amount time on utilitarianism (too much in my opinion), thus I'm reasonably acquainted with its issues and variations/derivatives. One matter I should have mentioned is that when putting a measure on utilitarianism and valuing its worth in the context of political philosophy one finds large differences of opinion exist between populations (especially so in past decades). Where I live, there was a time when almost every utility was run by government and the majority of the population would have been aghast if it had not been the situation (perhaps that's why our curriculum covered it in such detail). For obvious reasons, utilitarian concepts hold much less sway in the US. ...

   Show morethread