Logic Conference 2010 and Why I Use Logic

 

Here's the list of speakers for the 2010 'Varieties of Higher-Order Logic, in conjunction with the ERC Plurals, Predicated and Paradox Research Project' Conference I attended and referred to in my previous post. It also gives a brief summary of what the aim of the workshop was and a little bit about the topic of different forms of higher-order Logic. I put it here because it's no longer easily available on the internet and it gives an idea of what I was learning about. Also, the first speaker is the same person I was discussing in my previous post, namely Salvatore Florio. 

You'll also see an arrow on my page - it means he was my favourite speaker because I loved the structure of his paper which made it easier to follow what he was trying to convey. 

Just because I love my Logic, does not mean that I have suddenly switched from being a Spinozist to a Logician! 

I've always seen Logic as merely an useful tool which can capture and analyse an argument succinctly. Therefore, for me, Logic is purely used to clarify what I'm trying to say. Logic has never been, nor ever will be, a research area for me. Indeed, right from the start, I wanted to apply Logic principles to philosophical arguments. And indeed I have used Logic in my History of Philosophy e.g. Spinoza, Cavendish, Shepherd. What does this mean? It means, for example, that I could use one of the 10 commandments in post 1 to analyse the structure and strength of a philosophical argument or a contra/counter-argument. Another approach I would use is (e.g. Spinoza Vol 1 ch 10) to reformulate Spinoza's argument in a written passage into the format of a Logic-structured argument e.g. A Reductio ad Absurdum. A further use, and as far as I am concerned the most important, is to check my own philosophical arguments in my research to ensure I'm not talking or writing rubbish! It also makes it easier for me to defend my interpretations, stance, arguments etc against any potential contras! 👍🙂 

So it's not Logic per se that interests me, it's the use I can put it to in Philosophy, especially in my research papers and books. 

However, I present the Logic in a way that makes it an optional extra. There are 3 ways to read my Logic passages: 

1 you are already familiar with Logic so you read it with ease and it helps to clarify my meaning 

2 you are not familiar with Logic but are prepared to give it a go so I try to take you through it step by step without assuming prior knowledge of e.g. the meaning of symbols or definitions I use so it is readable, understandable and enjoyable!

3 you can't stand Logic (whether you are familiar with it or not!) in which case I've written it so you can skip that bit without losing the thread of my overall argument. 

Finally, I didn't learn all my Logic knowledge and skills only from chatting to Simon Hewitt at socials, reading his recommended Logic reading list he emailed me, or attending one complicated conference and one workshop six years later. The second year of my Philosophy degree was the year when Logic was compulsory. As usual, I learnt absolutely everything and more for this module only to discover to my surprise that the harder elements of the course were missing on the exam paper. Never mind, it was worth learning so much more of the course and doing my own extra reading on various aspects and types of Logic because it made Logic come more naturally to me, which is why I pepper my philosophical thinking and writing with it. I don't use it to 'hardball' readers or make my research look extra impressive. I use Logic because it is part of my mindset and I think it does do a job in Philosophy and, if used well, it can make things clearer once you get used to seeing it. One of its greatest values is that it makes you think through an argument step by step, not deviating on the way!