polyglotbyron6
12-30-2005, 06:38 AM
"The rise of modern formal logic following the work of Frege and Russell brought with it a recognition of the many serious limitations of Aristotle's logic; today, very few would try to maintain that it is adequate as a basis for understanding science, mathematics, or even everyday reasoning."
The above is a quote from the online Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Among other things, I am trying very hard to promote classical education and modes of thought, at home, in public and in school ( I am a university student who helps homeschool my siblings). I would like to know if anyone out there can give me a clear exposition of the 'serious limitations' referred to by proponents of Frege/Russell logic; this I need to know if I am to defend my position with those who would deem my views as 'backward'. I have tried to find some information on these supposedly 'serious' limitations, but most of what I have found appears to be irrational (anti-traditionalist?) rants or ridiculous semantic pusillanimities. I'm sure I'm just missing something, and I would appreciate guidance.
happy new year to all!!
b.holmes
The above is a quote from the online Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Among other things, I am trying very hard to promote classical education and modes of thought, at home, in public and in school ( I am a university student who helps homeschool my siblings). I would like to know if anyone out there can give me a clear exposition of the 'serious limitations' referred to by proponents of Frege/Russell logic; this I need to know if I am to defend my position with those who would deem my views as 'backward'. I have tried to find some information on these supposedly 'serious' limitations, but most of what I have found appears to be irrational (anti-traditionalist?) rants or ridiculous semantic pusillanimities. I'm sure I'm just missing something, and I would appreciate guidance.
happy new year to all!!
b.holmes