Welcoem to posts!!
in the future - u will be able to do some more stuff here,,,!! like pat catgirl- i mean um yeah... for now u can only see others's posts :c
๐ฃ๐ต๐ถ๐น๐ผ๐๐ผ๐ฝ๐ต๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ผ๐ด๐ถ๐ฐ: ๐ช๐ฒ๐๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ป ๐ฃ๐ต๐ถ๐น๐ผ๐๐ผ๐ฝ๐ต๐
What is Logic? In philosophical terms, logic addresses questions such as:
โขWhat does it mean for an argument to be valid or sound?
โขWhat are the limits of logical reasoning?
โขHow do logical systems relate to reality & truth?
Philosophy of logic is used to provide answers to these questions by analyzing the conceptual framework of logic itself, rather than simply applying it.
So, Logic is a fundamental element of philosophy used to clarify what constitutes valid reasoning, truth, & argumentation.
Now, Aristotle, often regarded as the "Father of Logic," developed the first formal system of logic in his Organon, which includes treatises such as Prior Analytics & On Interpretation. His work focused on syllogistic reasoningโa method of deductive reasoning which involved premises leading to a conclusion.
Formal Logic was mainly used by philosophers like Gottlob Frege, Immanuel Kant. They used deductive reasoning to guarantee the truth of its conclusions if the premises are true.
Like:
If it rains (P), then the ground will be wet (Q).
Symbolically:
๐โ๐.
Informal Logic was used by John Stuart Mill, David Hume. They talked about:
Fallacies: Errors in reasoning, such as ad hominem attacks or false dilemmas.
Inductive Reasoning: Generalizing from specific observations.
Like:
"Every swan I have seen is white; therefore, all swans are white."
While not deductively valid, it is a plausible conclusion based on empirical evidence.
Mathematical Logic is the firmest of all & most empirically respected. But tough to apply. Philosophers like Spinoza, Leibniz, Bertrand Russell used Mathematical Logic to answer the truths about reality based on Set theory & Natural Numbers.
Like:
In propositional calculus, the statement:
(PโงQ)โP
is a tautology, meaning it is true in all interpretations.
Now, can we say that logic is universal? In short, both yes & no. Classical Logic says, "The apple is red" & "The apple is not red" cannot both be true at the same time. So Logic behind Apple's color is true for the all viewers.
But when we focus on specific cultural & linguistic contexts, Logic varies.
1.1K - 53
Camus's 4 best sellers!!!
510 - 27
๐ช๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐บ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ฒ ๐บ๐ฒ ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ถ๐ป ๐ฃ๐ต๐ถ๐น๐ผ๐๐ผ๐ฝ๐ต๐?
It was almost 10 years ago. I wasn't very sure about my future. Since my childhood, I used to observe my surroundings & questioning some fundamental absurdities around me became my daily philosophical mast*rbation. Actually, I was a fan of reading classical literature. Specifically, Bengali, English, French & Russian Authors.
And my History teacher(also Literature teacher- same teacher)sowed the seed of interest in three things:
1. Politics
2. Philosophy
3. Ideological themes
RIP Sir.
Politics left me in 2019. Or may be I should say I keep myself away from politics & ideological themes cause they annoy me & I find them a circus for quick entertainment. (With my acceptance of the fact that Politics ultimately shapes a lot of a nation & it's citizen)
Now back to 2015 again, I started reading French, Italian history as well as Indian history. Authors like Dante, Rousseau, Voltaire, Machiavelli were some of my first authors/philosophers. In Indian authors tho, the list was big, but notably, Sarat Chandra, Rabindranath, Madhusudan, Bhagat Singh (as much as I can recall) developed my sense of critic.
In parallel, I am a big science nerd, so scientists like Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, Sagan too influenced my rationalism.
But I must accept that I wasn't a good critic back that time. But to question assumptions, think logically, & analyze problems, philosophy helped me a lot.
Now comes Nietzsche. A constant influence on me he had since 2017. I had a love hate relationship with his philosophy. Sometimes I felt like Nietzsche made a lot sense, sometimes doesn't.
Now, in 2025(almost), I feel like Nietzsche was practical & very much pragmatic. May be he wasn't perfect, & in modern times he would've been seriously b*llied by the social media, but his influence can not be denied in not only the philosophical world, but also theological world too.
Now, finally, since, I belong to a family where Hindu philosophies were much accepted & appreciated, my Grandfather's immense influence can't be denied. From Vedas to Bhagavat Gita, he was the one who made me a geek of Indian culture & diverse themes.
RIP Dada, hope your energy of positivity gets transmitted through the nerves of me.
2.1K - 146
๐ ๐ ๐ผ๐ป๐ฒ ๐ถ๐ ๐ฎ ๐ณ๐ฎ๐ป ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ฎ๐น๐น โค
Traditional media & audience thinks that Women might be interested more into agenda driven books or not too intellectually intriguing books, while I believe, with a very niche & loyal audience, women uplift the quality of philosophical writing & even can properly implement it(if not better)like men do.
So, let's stop generalization of women's taste in thought provoking things, and accept a broader fact that, women's cultural impact is too heavy to be outlooked!
Btw my one & only lady love is a bibliophile & loves reading deeply thought provoking books โค. She was the one who brought me to Psychological genres of books(definitely a psychology student).
Thank you โค๐น.
4.4K - 153
๐ช๐ต๐ผ ๐ถ๐ ๐ฎ ๐ด๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ ๐บ๐ฎ๐ป?
The Great Man... is colder, harder, less hesitating, and without fear of 'opinion'; he lacks the virtues that accompany respect and 'respectability,' and altogether everything that is the 'virtue of the herd.' If he cannot lead, he goes alone... He knows he is incommunicable: he finds it tasteless to be familiar... When not speaking to himself, he wears a mask. There is a solitude within him that is inaccessible to praise or blame.
Nietzsche is often associated with a sense of Nihilism because he saw life not worth to hope for. But he remodelled the concept of hope as "Free will" or the "Transcendence from traditional moral definition".
The greatness of a man is fundamentally measured by the universality and general relevance of his 'work', life, being. What is real "self" is?
Nietzsche had the รผbermensch, a โsuper manโ contrasted against the the last man.
The last man represents the worthless degenerate outcome of modernity, an entitled unproductive victim of his own hypocrisy who believes that his fight for equality-for-all makes him morally superior-to-all.
As a goal, the รผbermensch is an ideal that we, according to Nietzsche, should all strive to become, if for no other reason than to avoid becoming a last man.
He also would have called all the politically subjugated people a "captive of hypocrisy".
Nietzsche believed people looked to religions to answer all of lifeโs unanswerable questions, and no matter how unreasonable the claims of religion are, people will believe it because they need some kind of validation.
Exactly what a man who has higher purpose should've transcended. His answers come from inside. They're not in visual or materialistic interpretation.
Here we clearly see Nietzsche's early life influence from Vedanta, Upanishads which his close professor, Schopenhauer brought to his sight.
Advait promotes a non materialist existence of humans. Human brains can fathom generally reduced visual things. But life & your purpose are obviously non materialist reflection of this great cosmos.
You the observer aren't separate from the universe. So, until you have a higher purpose to be alive, you should live.
1.9K - 37
๐๐ฎ๐ธ๐ฒ ๐ณ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐๐, ๐น๐ถ๐ฒ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ป๐ฑ ๐บ๐ผ๐๐ถ๐๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ฎ๐น ๐๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฒ๐
Many people go to therapy wondering why consuming self-help content isnโt helping them. They ask questions like:
โI read more self-help books than anyone I know. It makes me feel inferior because other people donโt seem to need it as much as I do. What is wrong with me?โ
โMy mindset changes with every self-help guru I come across. Because of this, I am unable to follow through on any of my self-improvement goals. What do I do about this?โ
โI spend a lot of money on self-help events. Sometimes I donโt even want to go, but I have a fear of missing out on valuable tips. How do I pick and choose?โ
โMy Instagram feed is full of self-help influencers who claim their method is the best. How do I know who to trust?โ
Actually the answer lies behind the source of extreme thoughts being originated something which Self Help or Coaching can never tell you.
A study showed that those who consumed self-help books had higher levels of cortisol (the stress hormone) & were more likely to have depressive symptoms compared to those who did not.
The problem may be that most self-help content available to the masses follows a one-size-fits-all approach to mental health.
Most of the time self help contents are repetitive, same things written again & again to make books intriguing to young readers.
On the contrary, when someone writes a self-help book, their goal is to sell to as many people as they can. So, self-help content is often oversimplified & sweetened with a false sense of hope and meaningless pats on the back.
Ummm, that's why "Hope is a word just to extend your suffering capitalized by smart businessmen". Did I just poked a bald guy with a cigar? May be.
When I read Advaita, I find that "self" or "Atman" can never be satisfied by the idea of "manifesting" desires with an overemphasis on positive thinking. This overlooks deeper self-inquiry.
Self Help actually maintains the illusion of ego by emphasizing "you" as a separate while, "you", the observer & the grand cosmos or reality are the same projection of the unified Truth.
1.7K - 42
New book โค. If you're a Vedanta follower, or you want to calm your inner chaos, go for it.
170 - 26
๐๐ผ ๐๐ผ๐ ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐น๐ถ๐ฒ๐๐ฒ ๐ถ๐ป ๐๐ป๐ฑ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฑ๐๐ฎ๐น ๐๐๐ฟ๐๐ด๐ด๐น๐ฒ ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐น๐น๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐๐ฒ ๐๐๐ฟ๐๐ด๐ด๐น๐ฒ?
Actually Juxtaposing these two ways of philosophical themes was very tough for me when I was a teenager. I also suffered a lot to understand which is the correct way & how to balance both.
Thakur(Tagore) says to belief in the autonomy of our individual spirit, its independence. To prioritize more "Swadharma". Every single one of us, has a unique contribution to make, even if that path is solitary.
No, it's not about disconnecting yourself to people. Neither it's about "Lone wolf" BS. It's the importance of going our own way, when no ears are listening to your cry for individualism, it's better to walk alone.
Tagore's line "Jodi tor daak sune keu na aase to be ekla cholo re" (If no one responds to your call, then go your own way alone) can be a reflection of his personal tragedies as well. Since his childhood he saw a lot of deaths in his family. His mother at a very young age, his closest sister-in-law, his wife, his father, his two children & many more. He believed that human life is a lot surrounded with pain, loss & suffering.
So, moving alone can be one of the better ways when no hands grab you to enlighten or guide.
Poetic ๐ฎโ๐จ
On the other hand, Keller showers her attention on the belief that the pooling of resources, ideas, & energy leads to achievements far beyond the capabilities of any individual alone.
Like: Sports. In sports there's a little room for personal hall of fame.
Kellerโs own life story, inspired by her experiences as a person being both blind & deaf, showcases her reliance on the constant collaboration with others, most notably her teacher Anne Sullivan.
Now, apparently both are right from their individual aspect. Tagore, being an existentialist writer, promotes authenticity: the need to be true to oneself, even if it means confronting solitude. Keller being a determinist, promotes ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ผ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป: the belief that human strength is magnified through alliances.
Now, from my personal observation I've seen either side. But mostly I'll say, Thakur's observation is far ahead. Your biggest support system is "you".
2.6K - 110
๐๐
๐ถ๐๐๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ถ๐ฎ๐น ๐๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ ๐ถ๐ ๐๐ป๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐น ๐ถ๐ณ ๐๐ผ๐'๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฏ๐ ๐ถ๐ด๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ & ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ด๐ฎ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ
Hummm. Quite a bit of observation as an agnostic I have got in past few years of content creation. Neither I rely on Scientific Materialistic Arguments to justify God doesn't exist not I rely on ignorance of empirical evidences just to prove superiority over logic.
Actually human brains, although formed mostly put of logic works differently. Some try to justify everything from materialistic & visual perspectives (like show me if God is there), some try to justify everything from speculative & faithful perspectives (like God exists I've felt that but can't prove that).
Either way, I felt a bit of rigidity of theory & evidence.
New atheists often treat science as the only valid means of acquiring knowledge, reducing religion to a series of factual claims that can be tested & disproven. And I'm a big critic of this approach. Metaphysical atheists, like Nietzsche, operate with the understanding that not all truths are empirical. Existential questions about the nature of suffering, willpower, freedom, & human aspirations in a universe may be indifferent.
So typical generalization against Religion using Scientific Reasoning is a lot weak. Yeah, you can use Mathematical reasoning to counter faith, but mostly neo atheists lack mathematical knowledge & just jump into criticism.
Logic, as applied in mathematics, requires concrete evidence(cosmological or numerical), religious thoughts deal with symbolic, or subjective truths.
Now, some of you might say, no my religion says Truth is One. However, faith by definition involves belief that transcends purely rational evidence. So, no matter what is the nature of Truth by your faith, you can never truly assure this without getting any contradiction.
Now the rigidity of both is the limitations of interpretation both have. Philosophers like Sรธren Kierkegaard have argued that embracing faith involves a "leap" beyond logic, choosing to believe despite the absence of absolute rational certainty. And science too can not assure your inconclusiveness.
523 - 61
Unboxing, review & reading order coming soon!
458 - 33
Hello Hola Namaste to all Anime lovers. It's TETSU here. I make Anime Manga content, specially on Seinen & speak on Philosophy related to the context