15k Subscribers Q&A

[@thawsomepancakes3615]

My school doesn't offer any philosophy curriculums, so I'm using the internet as a resource. Your glossary series has helped me tremendously, thank you and congratulations on the milestone!

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Thanks! Learning online is hard but getting easier, good luck with it.

[@JD-pi2ce]

Congratulations. I've been following your career for 8 years or so. I'm a software engineer, not a philsopher but I thoroughly enjoy (albeit without fully understanding) your videos! Philosophy sometimes feel like a bit of a guarded city; thanks for putting a little drawbridge down for those of us not lucky enough to receive an invitation. 😊 Although, I have to say, sitting in a dark cocktail bar reading a philosophy paper under candlelight is about the most hipster thing I seem to be able to possibly imagine.

[@romaot]

I just came across your channel and you are awesome!

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Thank you so much!!

[@alessandrocorona1906]

Thank you so much for your answer, and congratulations again!

[@sambennett8852]

Thanks for answering my questions! I had just finished an undergrad paper on the possibility of feminist logic, there's some interesting work going on in the area. I ultimately advocated an epistemic/normative conception of logic, which I think leads to logical pluralism. I also used anti-exceptionalism to explore how logic could learn from feminist philosophy of science. Logical nihilism is defended by Gillian Russell who also does great work in the feminist philosophy of logic, the view is more that there are no laws of logic that hold in complete generality. Anyway, congrats on the milestone! Look forward to more videos.

[@olgacooperman3360]

Congratulations!

[@SathimathBalasuriya-r9h]

Great video and thoughtful answers! Mark, I've sent an email to your UoN email regarding philosophy tutoring. Thanks!

[@ayodhyakinkarkabi2810]

Congratulations sir 😊

[@dominiks5068]

Thanks for doing this, Dr Jago! One thing I'd like to add: Logical nihilism doesn't really say that there is "no logic", just that there are no exceptionless logical principles - Gillian Russell has defended this, giving alleged counterexamples to modus ponens, etc. I don't think the arguments work, but the view doesn't strike me as THAT crazy

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Ok. There’s good arguments against nearly every philosophical principle, but I guess I’m not tempted by pluralism on every issue.

[@SeanAnthony-j7f]

I've been attracted to philosophy because it is just generally a very fuzzy field that talks about everything with different methods and ideas of doing so. To a person who always reflects on my assumptions, common sense, world view, science, arts, literature, language, culture etc. Philosophy bridges all of these not in a single coherence though that would be theoretically fallacious or even at worse impossible. I was introduced to the typical western canonical philosophers that ever can come out of their mind when talking about philosophy. But since I discovered analytic philosophy I immediately know that I will devote most of my life to logic, mathematical logic, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of science, philosophy of language and even mind and all other major areas of philosophy like Epistemology, Metaphysics, Aesthetics and Ethics. I even have an interest in Jurisprudence, Economics, Biology, Politics, Computer science, Literature, Physics and A.I. maybe even more...! Specialization definitely has bad consequences like building divisions and hierarchy on academic fields. If you specialize yourself to per say theoretical physics putting a lot of effort into this single field can definitely make you more expert than others who have more interdisciplinary approach and interest. Nevertheless, the philosophy of science bridges the gap for logic, mathematics and physics which I always wanted to study but with more different methodologies and overall goals which build conceptual foundations for scientific inquiry, the scientific enterprise itself and even the history and philosophy of science. Which I can also explore its implications to aesthetics and morality if I can strip underlying facts from it. But later in my life after all of those rigorous conceptual analysis I can now devote or indulge myself to pure philosophy to build my own system of thoughts based on all of my collective experiences to all fields that I have undertaken.

[@SeanAnthony-j7f]

I also forgot that I will also devote a considerable amount of time to philosophy of philosophy or metaphilosophy or philosophical methodology to analyze the limits of pure reasoning and science and to reflect upon other ways of knowing like experience and the cultural context and find a bridge on how to approach these issues.

[@RyanIsHoping]

Computability and Logic by Boolos and Jeffrey felt ridiculously over-challenging for philosophy students. I wouldn't recommend it. I actually enjoyed reading it but the writing style is extremely math-student-oriented and therefore a pleasure to read to someone like me who's already a computer science academic. My experience helping a philosophy student through it for an "intermediate logic for philosophers" course revealed to me how wildly impenetrable the language is to regular people, even those who successfully struggled through the painful writing of great philosophers. I personally love it when a text can be trivially converted to first-order logic sentences. But watching the students in that class made me realize that that feature is a terrible obstacle for the average philosophy student.

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Definitely not an intermediate-level logic book!

[@olgacooperman3360]

Congratulations!