First Qualification: The title for the page suggest that this is a study of “conflicting paradigms,” in itself. However, this is-strictly-not the case since that designation would imply a study of more than one side of the issue. While contemporary logic is a major consideraton, this page entails an argument for the superiority of traditional logic in light of and in pursuit of understanding philosophical issues that deal specifically with the advantages that accrue to the human, in distinction from what is currently being taught in many contemporary schools of thought that employ what is known as “symbolic logic.”
——– ♦ ♦ ♦ ——-
Second qualification: The analysis Dr. Kreeft employs in the section below (i.e., in The Two Logics excerpt) is primarily aimed at professors of philosophy in to order promote a book he’d written. So, it is an excellent summary yet it is intended for a fairly advanced audience in philosophical studies. If you are a new student in this area of study please do not be discouraged if you do not immediately pick up on what he is saying. This is precisely where a study group such as ours can, and will, come in as a great assistance. That to say, if you would like to learn more about this kind of study you’ve come to the right place. If you want to learn more about these kinds of ideas please do join us in our discussions. After all, this is our purpose, or at least one of the main reasons for our existence.
Click here for a PDF of analysis taken from a chapter out of Peter Kreeft’s book, Socratic Logic, titled ==> The Two Logics . The root of a fundamental philosophical criticism which have been leveled at Socratic/Aristotelian, or traditional logic, stems from the root misunderstanding of The First Act of the Mind, Understanding. In an attempt to basically delineate, clarify, and defend this position I would like to invite you to these hot linked studies (as you can see there are three, two are on the same topic however; one is shorter than the other) the other was taken from Peter Kreeft’s book, Socrates Meets Kant, which allows us to consider the act of Understanding under a clear light.
♦ —– ♦ —– ♦ —– ♦ —– ♦
If you would like to investigate a bit further into the kinds of distinctions philosophers and theologians have made provide viability to this form, or mode, of thought which Kreeft assumes in his contentions in The Two Logics, please consider these documents. The hot linked pages are abstracts from an R.C. Sproul (one of the philosophers on our group’s site) book titled Classical Apologetics, which presents the three non-negotiable ideas, 1) the law of non-contradiction, 2) causality, and 3) the basic reliability of sense perception). Dr. Sproul asserts that these three principles of thought must be assumed in any rationally defensible discourse of apologetics. So we would encourage you to join us in a consideration of these principles. The final link is a consideration of how these ideas, principles and concepts, for so long denied and misunderstood, can help us to see clear of some of the confusions that have developed in our world as a result. The last link is a summary PDF of all of logic.
For anyone who would like to read more about these issues which employs a throughgoing analysis that is second to none, it can be found in Dr. Edward Feser’s book titled The Last Superstition. Just click on that hotlink and you will arrive at our page where you can find out more about this facinating subject, more about this book along with order information for those who would like to obtain a copy.
If you enjoy thinking about these sorts of concepts and issues you might want to visit our page that gives detail to the controversial debate that arose between Lewis and Elizabeth Anscombe. If you’re not familiar with that exchange you will definitely want to look into it. If so click here for our ==> The Lewis/Anscombe Debate page.