I want to ease myself back into learning, especially philosophy, so I'm planning on picking up logic to help with future classes- any recommendations would be appreciated! I'm fine with doing a free course online or reading, I just need to start learning again because I'm going insane

Hi, I am a software engineer and I've been working on a project in my free time that centers around formalizing and structuring arguments/discourse using a web app. My motivation is pretty simple, I find that the social media platforms where discourse is held isn't well designed to visualize or respond to arguments (twitter being the worst, yet also one of the most popular for this sort of thing) and I want to see if I can make something to make that easier. FWIW, it will be free and open source as this project isn't supposed to generate profit.

I've done a fair bit of online research on logic, deductive and inductive reasoning, argumentology theory, and related topics to help me better understand the core concepts and components that make up arguments/debates. That being said, I have so many questions and figured I'd see if Reddit could help me out.

Quick points before we get to the questions:

• For context, the focus of this project would be around discussions or arguments that people have about topics related to politics, economics, social issues, etc. as opposed to logic used for things like mathematics or computer science. That being said, I have no idea if this distinction actually makes a difference.
• I think I am mainly focused on inductive reasoning, since–from what I can tell–deductive reasoning is usually employed for logical conclusions based on "absolutes" rather than subjective statements. I took a class in discrete math back in the day for my CS degree, and the logic employed in math is based on certain axioms and the conclusions follow deductive logic that is provably true and leave no room for disagreement which seems to be different than what I'd like to deal in.
• I have looked into and played around with Argdown quite a bit as it's a similar project, but I don't think it quite suites my needs. That being said, if you're familiar with that project you might find it has guided some of my understanding of the topic.

Main Questions:

• Vocabulary! I keep saying argument in this document, but I don't know if that's the right term for what I am trying to describe. Is there some material I can read to get a better handle on what the components and terminology is to describe "situations when someone wants to make a claim (and present supporting information to support the original claim, perhaps including sources/citations from third-parties)"?
• Am I correct to say that most discourse that occurs in society takes the form of propositional logic as opposed to predicate logic? From my reading, it looks like the latter is more of the "math-y" logic, and the former is more "argument-y"
• Is premise-conclusion structure a common way to formally present an argument? Argdown seems to suggest that PCS is the most well-formed representation of an argument
• Logical relationships between statements: one thing I want to be able to optionally visualize or customize in the app would be the logical reasoning used between a conclusion and it's supporting statements. I've seen modus ponens and modus tollens, but are there more "tools of logic" that are commonly used to correctly draw a conclusion?
• Logical errors or fallacies: I suspect supporting this is just as important, if not more so, to being able to properly argue with someone. More so than all the above, I'm struggling to wrap my head around how to articulate that "the other person is wrong". I don't even have a single question to ask here, but rather how do you formally say that someone's argument was not sound? I've had a lot of fun using https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ to respond to people online, but I'm struggling to find the relationship between those fallacies and fundamental concepts of logic. Like how would you transform the notation of a claim `A -> B` that was not a sound claim because, for example, it relied on an appeal to emotion?
• Representing trust: In this era of increased distrust of authorities/subject experts, I think I should probably account for the reputation or trustworthiness of the source of supporting evidence. I've explored a bit about this idea and it seems that subjective logic can support this where you can mathematically represent the trustworthiness of a source to give a probability of a claim being true based on a network of trust. Did I miss any other methods/options of incorporating trust into argument construction?

Last, but not least, if anyone feels charitable enough to answer questions directly I would greatly appreciate that as posting on a sub doesn't always get visibility or responses. Additionally, if you'd like to help beyond answering questions, that would be even better!

Thanks for reading and sorry for the verbosity :)

edit: bolded the questions

Very often, I will be browsing the internet and people will mention that somebody is high-value or their status is blah blah blah. I don't really understand, just from observation in my real life I don't really notice a difference in how somebody treats somebody because of status.

These 3 examples are what I mean

1. A homeless person is treated poorly by 4 teenagers passing by ( A specific case of status/value )
2. A high value male is rejected by women ( value )
3. A person with high status is treated with care and respect ( status )

This also goes for what people mean by "good", "bad", "beautiful", etc. I can feel out and remember what they called such and such, and how they got mean those things. But I don't really see anything big that ties it together. So are they just talking about the structure instead of the things themselves or a large set of things that we just call "status" or "value"?

Thanks, if you read this ( idk if this is the right place to ask, but it seems like it )

( also is there something to read up on about this idea in Philosophy, if so thanks. )

I am trying to get a bit deeper about interaction design in video games. Analyzing interaction via semiotics perspective. And I recently came across Baudrillard's hyperreality theory. It made me wonder:

does interaction with a game world fit into this concept?

Sorry if this sounds like rambling—I'm new to philosophy and would love to hear thoughts from those more experienced!
🔖☺️

Or are companions and dedicated explanations more efficient for that?

To be precise, i'm currently reading Descartes, and not able to understand everything in the fourth part of the Discourse on Method.

I used Kenny's book as a primer, but midway through his cronogolical part of Medieval Philososophy i decided to move to main texts, which i've selected with the first priority them being accessible works, after brief reading into Plato and Epictetus i moved to Descartes.

Also there's lots of youtube lectures, forum discussions and conversations with AI apps that i've been drinking in over 2 years.

So this obstacle has me thinking; should i still use Kenny's book on the side? Ir is it not made for that?

If not, what's a better tool? I hope i'm not a total moron being unable to clearly understand Descartes who is famed as clear and brief.

Thanks

Or, at least, relying on some sentiment of virtue in order to ground his standard of taste?

I asked chat gpt to make me a list of the top 20 philosophy of science/philosophy of physics phd programs. Would you say that this list is accurate?

• Harvard University
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
• Stanford University
• Princeton University
• University of California, Berkeley
• University of Chicago
• Columbia University
• University of Pittsburgh
• University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
• University of Pennsylvania (UPenn)
• Yale University
• California Institute of Technology (Caltech)
• University of California, San Diego (UCSD)
• University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
• University of Wisconsin-Madison
• Rutgers University
• University of Maryland, College Park
• University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
• University of California, Irvine (UCI)
• University of Texas, Austin

Hi, so for context:

I (18M) am studying in Spain second of bachillerato. In this year, every mark you get in every exam counts for your mark (like GPA) and, as I want to study medicine, i need the highest one possible (like a 9,3 out of 10)

So far I am doing great in every subject, except philosophy, where I have a 6 / 10. Passing that subject is not hard, as the exam is divided in;

Microtheme: the teacher hands in 4 one-page 300 words essay about some theme. One of them is bound to appear in the exam. You memorize and practically vomit it in the exam. 4/4 points, you have a 4 / 10 already

Words: The teacher hands 3 texts, and you learn the concepts of 2. They get asked in the exam, each of them is worth one point.

My problem is with the essay (disertación). I have a 3.5 / 10 in the first one, but I have progressed in the writing. My main problem is that i am required to use the arguments of real philosophists to sustain mine, but i am fully deterministic:

I think that our brains are wired differently for each human, depending on the DNA. Then, when you take decisions (based on that wiring) the consecuences of that desicion impacts your wiring, and the cycle repeats until you die.

Is there any philosopher out there who thinks the same, so I can be able to sustain my arguments and get a high score?? I would really appresiate the help.

When I've talked to people about whether "the soul" exists, I've often been told that I can only use that word to refer to a non-physical thing that can exist independently of physical structures like the human brain. I find this odd because it seems to me than any sort of consciousness could be considered "soul," and the requirement that it be non-physical seems arbitrary to me. I'm especially confused because different cultures have very different ideas that are analogous to the "soul" and could be translated as such, and I don't understand why non-physicality would be a sticking point.

It seems like people are just arbitrarily defining "soul" as "whatever is most similar to the modern Christian concept," but I've been told that I'm "redefining" something mundane in a dishonest way. Am I missing something?

It could be of specific ones I don’t mind which

One can imagine a number of programs that seem to be necessary for the military, but require taxation and redistribution. For example: 

Surely, combat medics and doctors in forward operating bases are justified, right? What about the DoD healthcare system, which is distinct from the VA system. Are veterans programs justified? Are veteran pensions justified? Are chaplain’s services justified? What about healthcare-adjacent programs, like funding for the NIH? And the numerous defense technology companies that help develop weapons? Surely these help the military perform, but they seem too extensive for just a minimal state. Does the state of affairs of the world -- as well as the rising demand for more developed arms and bigger militaries -- expand the definition of what is encompassed by the military state?

Its trivially easy to list individuals who have harmed or even murdered people on account of any specific ideas. For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that people in broadly all and any political spectrums (e.g. any religion, left/right, capitalist/socialist etc.) can be cited as examples.

On a default free will view: basically those ideologies, if responsible, would be sharply criticized and depending on the situation, the person could very much be held responsible. Rarely, instigators of those ideas could also be culpable.

Ideas, or believing ideas is not exculpatory in itself.

On free will skepticism, how does this work?

In my view, I would argue Henry does know that the barn is a barn, because according to all the knowledge he has available to him, he has fulfiled a necessary level of justification. If he knew he was in fake barn county then he would have to meet a higher level of justification for it to be knowledge. I would argue the issue arises from judging him by our standards of verification, because we know more than he does. There are numerous, practically infinite, facts we aren't aware of, but we cannot be expected to fulfil these conditions to know something. We can only know based on the information we have at our disposal.

The common view is that privately owned platforms are not required to platform people and legally requiring privately owned platforms or other places intended for use by a wide amount of users to platform or censor people would be against freedom of speech.

Is it possible to justify having freedom of speech framed in a way where it is possible to have it be enforceable against private platforms and also legally regulate it to censor hatered ? Or would it be incoherent ?

Im very interested in nietzche and spinoza what should I read to understand them better and to have a good base for philosophy discussion ?

I'm taking an upper division Philosophy of Law class. So far I'm at: faithfully reconstruct the author's argument. What's the next step? Is there a next step? What about best practices or guidance in good ways to approach breaking down texts with an aim to the philosophical future of applying such principles?

We're constrained to the curated texts here. I can reconstruct the arguments just fine. It's much harder to ignore the deep flaws in the various positions here. And even harder to haphazardly apply those flawed concepts to outside situations knowing those flaws remain.

Often it feels like I take an analytical bead to the texts trying to interrogate individual sentences or words, and that an opportunity cost is incurred that I miss some forest-level connection for those trees. But nothing in the course nor the professor has spoken to how to appropriately balance understanding of the texts with application of those texts.

The professor's advice: "Spend more time practicing, and trust your instincts." Reader, I've spent more than three times what the professor recommended on Hart-Fuller. I read, I summarized individual paragraphs all the way down on both, I outlined, I re-read. I can't imagine anyone else in this class has the time to do what I've done, in the way I've done it, but I knew the battle would be uphill so I planned before taking this class to leave myself much more time. But the result is I spend much more time to get a result that feels like trying to hold onto a fistful of sand.

This course is not like any other course I've taken at University, nor is the professor like any other professor I've taken. The demand is put upon me to closely read on one hand, which I'm no stranger to, but on another these concepts have to be taken further but no word has ever been uttered to me about what this process looks like in Philosophy.

What am I missing here, what are the specific and enumerated goals we're aiming at with this?

Descriptively speaking, do people take the argument to be drawing ontological or epistemic conclusions? EDIT: I don't mean this question universally, I simply want to know what the spread between the two is.

Hello!

I'm currently in a directed readings course that is functioning as a graduate level introduction to phenomenology. We're currently going through Husserl, and I've become curious about his relationship to metaphysics. In the Idea of Phenomenology which is the text we've most engaged with so far (and I am aware it is an earlier work), he seems to hold out that metaphysics of a kind are possible, albeit under the right epistemological conditions. As such, a question I asked my professor I wish to ask here: what would Husserlian metaphysics look like, and if he did sketch out anything to that effect in his later work? Alternatively, are later phenomenologists the ones to examine for metaphysics after phenomenology?

I'm an atheist, and struggle to understand how people who believe in God view morality, specifically the idea of Divine Command theory. I view morality as being how your actions impact other people, so the idea of some deity who is above humanity dictating how people ought to treat each other seems weird to me. Especially with religious views of the LGBTQ+ community. Someone being gay doesn't actually impact anyone else, but if some God says so people just forget they have logical reasoning skills and accept that it's wrong? I view morality as something that supersedes the opinions of a God. Even if there was a God that hated people being gay, I don't look at that and think being gay is wrong, I view that God as being unjust.

What gives God the ability to decide what is right and wrong, when it comes to human affairs?

I read this somewhere but lost whatever I was reading.

In my head there's a 60% chance it's Herbert Marcuse but no luck searching for it with said terms.

If we can prove the existence of a God, and we can also reveal how God is made, can we dissamble the term "God" into a different light when new evidence comes in?

For example, if we traditionally thought, by our human standards, in our imaginations, that God must be infinite. Yet if we discover prastical knowledge that this is not the case, nor does it have to be, nor is it possible, do we understand that our definition of God is A, unrealistic and B, needs to adapt. Or do we cling into the old concept of "God" even when new knowledge has come about matter.

Thoughts?

Positivism and logical positivism belong to epistemology. Shouldn't analytic philosophy also be part of epistemology? I can't find such categorization online.

Lately been thinking a lot about this. My thoughts are all over the place. How do we as a society define what is right or wrong?

Is it based on the rules/laws we pass ? If so then illegal immigration seems wrong. But there were times when being gay was considered illegal too and so was smoking weed.

Is it based on who it pertains to ? Is it wrong to body shame let’s say Oprah or Michelle Obama but alright if we do that to Elon Musk or Trump ? Why is it fine to take jabs at Trumps kids but crossing a line when done for other people ? Does who we like or not make it okay to say mean things to them ?

Is killing wrong? Is revenge killing wrong too ? Is killing a CEO right though?

Some part of me thinks right and wrong are absolute, or should be absolute. But I do see a lot of deviation from this ideology.

Freedom of speech itself I agree with. However, hate speech is used as a weapon, to inflict terror. To force action. So I'm having a hard time bringing that with freedom of speech, freedom of the press. Even with propaganda and obvious bias it seems required and necessary.

As the title suggests, does Baudrillard’s concept of hyperreality still apply to cities like Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and Doha? Are they driven by different mechanisms? And would his book America have been called Persian Gulf instead?