My brother is a professor of philosophy, specialising in formal logic. I’ve looked at some of his papers, and they’re impossible for me to understand.
I’d be interested in hearing what, in your opinion, is the difference between “Western Logic” and “Eastern Logic.”
I recently read this book (written by two philosophers):
The authors spend a couple of pages discussing the difference between Greek/Aristotelean and Indian argumentation, and they claim that Indian syllogisms are focused on persuasion where Greek syllogisms are focused on logical validity.
Logic has different branches. I would imagine that symbolic logic/formal logic fits easily in computer sciences, while informal logic is more apt for languages.
See the wikipedia article:
Logic as conceived in the Trivium was more closely related to language arts (grammar, logic and rhetoric), while symbolic logic looks much more like mathematics.
Same here, for my History BA.
But for me, symbolic logic was a math course for my BSci in Applied Mathematics. I’ll add that it was a fun course.
First time I took Logic I dropped it. I was not clear on what the subject was (just ticking a box on a requirement) and it was terrible.
A year or so later I needed that requirement and took the class again. Different professor and I loved it and did very well in it. Most importantly, he made it fun.
A good professor is always important but more for some classes than others. I think this is one where a good professor makes a big difference.
Agree. My professor was a good one too. He made it interesting and he made it fun. One thing I remember, one day when we were discussing an important criminal court case at the time, is that he made the important distinction that the verdict is not that the person is determined to be Innocent, it is that the person is determined to be Not Guilty. A big difference there.
Well, yeah; but the problem is, then they want you to apply them to the real world.
It’s true that it’s generally possible to pass the course without doing so. But the course is being taught for a reason.
ISWYDT 
Was there any difference for you?
Classical logic and, let’s say, temporal intuitionistic fuzzy logic are not going to be have the same axioms or even the same syntax and semantics. Is there a single “real world” logic?
If there is, I don’t know what it is.
And I suspect it might vary by species, if there are other species having this sort of discussion somewhere. I think humans are trying, in varying ways, to wrap our heads around a universe that doesn’t fit inside our heads. That’s not a reason why we should stop trying, of course – probably the fact that we keep trying to do so is one of the definitions of being human.
Thats a long discussion and better done over drinks on a weekend 
. I’ll quote two examples, that perhaps illustrates the difference :
-
Catuṣkoṭi : This is foundational for the “Middle Path” in Buddhism
Catuṣkoṭi - Wikipedia -
Edward DeBono (of Lateral Thinking fame) : "De Bono traces the rigidity in Western thinking and orthodox education back to the Middle Ages, when the church was the seat of learning. The church’s intellectual needs were to defend its established theology against heretics. “For four centuries,” de Bono says, washing down the last of his sweet roll, “the educational system, the schools, seminaries, and universities were controlled by the church and thinking was designed to preserve a particular theology, by destroying any attempt to alter it. It’s really nonsensical, but it has dominated our thinking ever since.”
Edward de Bono; TEACHING THE WORLD TO THINK - CSMonitor.com
It used to be that there were three big areas a philosophy professor might fit into – logic, history of philosophy, and attempting the sort of philosophy historians of philosophy write about.
Logic has gone into a relative decline within philosophy. I see from this thread that some other departments (math and computer science) may be filling the gap.
I would say logic belongs to philosophy. Philo=love, sophy=knowledge or wisdom?
Whatever you’re studying, you want to strive to be sure that you really know what you think you know. It underpins everything, I think. Besides philosophy class, I think I learned it when constructing arguments in English (persuasive writing) and speech classes (debate etc.) as well.
And mine, in the ‘90s.
HUGE difference between philosophical logic and mathematical logic
Not CS, but my wife’s Philosophy prof occasionally noted differences between what she was being taught and how “the Evil Math Department” did things. Something about the empty set.
Your point is either well-taken or it is not well-taken. Or something in between.
I have to concede that, due to the way human minds work, memorizing an axiom will be much easier if that axiom makes intuitive sense.
For example, the following arbitrarily-chosen axiom is one of the basic reduction rules in the lambda-mu calculus:
(\mu \beta.u)v \; \triangleright_c \; \mu \beta.u \bigl[ [\beta](w v)/[\beta] w \bigr ]
Easy to remember? Depends on whether you can “wrap your head around it”, including the notation
Discrete mathematics has Boolean algebra, known as mathematical logic. This is very useful in Computing Science when juggling all those bits and bytes and electronic logic gate circuits.
There is also logic programming, a feature of some computing languages.
How this relates to philosophical logic is not clear to me.
Perhaps ‘logic’ is an overloaded word?
Maybe there is one of those ‘family tree of mathematics’ diagrams out there that explain the connection?