What do you think?
Rate this book
Very Short Introductions #029
سلسلة مقدمة قصيرة عن المنطق
عادة مايعد المنطق مجالا بعيدًا عن حقول الفلسفة ، بل وحتي عن الحياة الحقيقية . لكن في هذا الكتاب الشائق يوضح لنا المؤلف مدي خطأ هذا التصور للمنطق ،فيستكشف الجذور الفلسفية للموضوع ويوضح كيف يتعامل المنطق الصوري الحديث مع قضايا مثل وجود الله وحقيقة الوقت وتناقضات الاحتمال ونظرية القرار.بلغة بسيطة يتفعال معها غير المتخصصين ، يشرح الكتاب أساسيات المنطق الصوري ،ليبرز أهمية المنطق بوصفه جزءًا أصيلا من الفسفة الحديثة . ،
197 pages, Paperback
First published October 12, 2000
508 people are currently reading
4585 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 198 reviews
February 20, 2020
اولین کتابی بود که به صورت اختصاصی در مورد منطق میخواندم. در نتیجه توقعاتم بالا بود و متعاقباً در ابتدا کمی از کتاب ناامید بودم. قصد نویسنده، آشنا و درگیر کردن شما با منطق است، نه آموزش دقیق و نظامیافته آن. اگر توقعاتتان را با هدف کتاب هماهنگ کنید، کتاب خوبیست.
فصلهای آغازین کمی پیچیدهتر هستند، پس حوصله کنید. از آن کتابهای «دمر/درازکشخوان» نیست. کاغذ و قلم کنار دستتان باشد، گاهی باید چیزهایی را یاداشت کنید. متأسفانه تازه وقتی کتاب تمام شد، در صفحات پایانی راهنمایی در مورد نمادها و عملگردها یافتم که اگر ضمن خوانش به این راهنما مراجعه میکردم، گاهی کارم آسانتر میبود.
اگر میخواهید به صورت جدی فلسفه بخوانید، بهتر است اول کمی منطق بخوانید. شاید کتابهای بهتری از این برای شروع موجود باشد، من نمیشناسم. ولی این کتاب احتمالاً انتخاب خوبیست در حجمی مناسب و به نسبت حجماش متنوع.
از خوبیهای کتاب پرداختن به قضایا و برهانهای نامیست، مثل برهان نظم، کیهانشناسی و غیره. دلایل حضور این قضایا و براهین در کتاب متنوع است، گاهی به عنوان مثالی آموزشی برای آموختن یک روش استدلال، در مورادی به عنوان شاخصترین کاربرد یک استدلال، و زمانهایی به عنوان سفسطهآمیزترین یاچالشبرانگیزترین نمونهی استفاده از یک استدلال.
میخواهم بیشتر منطق بخوانم. قدمی بعدی احتمالاً کمدی منطق: سفری حماسی در پی حقیقت است.
فصلهای آغازین کمی پیچیدهتر هستند، پس حوصله کنید. از آن کتابهای «دمر/درازکشخوان» نیست. کاغذ و قلم کنار دستتان باشد، گاهی باید چیزهایی را یاداشت کنید. متأسفانه تازه وقتی کتاب تمام شد، در صفحات پایانی راهنمایی در مورد نمادها و عملگردها یافتم که اگر ضمن خوانش به این راهنما مراجعه میکردم، گاهی کارم آسانتر میبود.
اگر میخواهید به صورت جدی فلسفه بخوانید، بهتر است اول کمی منطق بخوانید. شاید کتابهای بهتری از این برای شروع موجود باشد، من نمیشناسم. ولی این کتاب احتمالاً انتخاب خوبیست در حجمی مناسب و به نسبت حجماش متنوع.
از خوبیهای کتاب پرداختن به قضایا و برهانهای نامیست، مثل برهان نظم، کیهانشناسی و غیره. دلایل حضور این قضایا و براهین در کتاب متنوع است، گاهی به عنوان مثالی آموزشی برای آموختن یک روش استدلال، در مورادی به عنوان شاخصترین کاربرد یک استدلال، و زمانهایی به عنوان سفسطهآمیزترین یاچالشبرانگیزترین نمونهی استفاده از یک استدلال.
میخواهم بیشتر منطق بخوانم. قدمی بعدی احتمالاً کمدی منطق: سفری حماسی در پی حقیقت است.
October 6, 2018
"...with vagueness, nothing is straighforward."
Graham Priest, VSI Logic
I was going to try to write a VSR (Very Short Review) of this book using symbolic logic, but abandoned that idea about 1/3 of the way through this book as I began to remember that while I enjoy logic in theory, the practice of formal logic and its symbols sometimes drives me batty. I think it stems not from my computing power, just my weak will power and general lack of interest. Some people love symbolic logic with its ability to dodge some of the difficulties of vagueness, equivocation, and confusion from emotive significance that comes from thinking carefully using languages that are, by nature, all a little fudgy. But, like any language, symbolic logic requires practice, discipline, and time. I guess I lack all three. I could write that in symbolic logic too, I guess, but like I said earlier. Nah, not really interested.
The book is, however, a nice overview of logic. Going through the basics of: validity, truth functions, names and quantifiers, descriptions, self-reference, necessity and possibility, conditionals, the future and the past, identity and change, vagueness, probability, inverse probability, decision theory, and a quick survey of logic from the Greeks to Bertrand Russell (and a bit beyond).
Probably, my favorite parts were probability and decision theory. But that goes back to my days doing economic analysis and econometrics. I felt like I was partially on terra firma. Partially. I should also disclose I read this in the bath. That is neither here nor there, but I think part of my difficulties with this book might have come from the lack of an oak table, green lamp, and chewed-up pencil.
Graham Priest, VSI Logic
I was going to try to write a VSR (Very Short Review) of this book using symbolic logic, but abandoned that idea about 1/3 of the way through this book as I began to remember that while I enjoy logic in theory, the practice of formal logic and its symbols sometimes drives me batty. I think it stems not from my computing power, just my weak will power and general lack of interest. Some people love symbolic logic with its ability to dodge some of the difficulties of vagueness, equivocation, and confusion from emotive significance that comes from thinking carefully using languages that are, by nature, all a little fudgy. But, like any language, symbolic logic requires practice, discipline, and time. I guess I lack all three. I could write that in symbolic logic too, I guess, but like I said earlier. Nah, not really interested.
The book is, however, a nice overview of logic. Going through the basics of: validity, truth functions, names and quantifiers, descriptions, self-reference, necessity and possibility, conditionals, the future and the past, identity and change, vagueness, probability, inverse probability, decision theory, and a quick survey of logic from the Greeks to Bertrand Russell (and a bit beyond).
Probably, my favorite parts were probability and decision theory. But that goes back to my days doing economic analysis and econometrics. I felt like I was partially on terra firma. Partially. I should also disclose I read this in the bath. That is neither here nor there, but I think part of my difficulties with this book might have come from the lack of an oak table, green lamp, and chewed-up pencil.
March 25, 2019
It is true, that this book is about logic, but it seems false that this is an introduction. The chapters are way too short for that and there are too many of them. I would have called the book Logic – A very short Overview.
For the second edition, chapters on Turing’s halting problem and Gödel’s incompleteness theorem have been added. And although I find all four (the people, as well as their results) extraordinary and noteworthy, I still think they are misplaced in a book like this. I would have found it better if instead of these new chapters, the old ones had been extended.
Personally, I was particularly interested in the discussion of modal logic. Unfortunately this chapter was rather short. The explanations on temporal logic and vagueness were interesting as well (and again, too short), while the remarks on probability seemed superfluous. I have to admit I expected more and I am somewhat disappointed.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
For the second edition, chapters on Turing’s halting problem and Gödel’s incompleteness theorem have been added. And although I find all four (the people, as well as their results) extraordinary and noteworthy, I still think they are misplaced in a book like this. I would have found it better if instead of these new chapters, the old ones had been extended.
Personally, I was particularly interested in the discussion of modal logic. Unfortunately this chapter was rather short. The explanations on temporal logic and vagueness were interesting as well (and again, too short), while the remarks on probability seemed superfluous. I have to admit I expected more and I am somewhat disappointed.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
October 6, 2024
Da imam neki ozbiljan višak para, kupio bih celu ediciju Very Short Introduction. Preko 700 knjiga u kojima se sažeto, kompetentno i pristupačno izlažu saznanja iz najrazličitijih oblasti. Nisu sve knjige ove serije istog kvaliteta, ali nisu ni sve oblasti podobne za sažeto predstavljanje. Nisu, doduše, ni talenti jednako raspoređeni: neki autori mogu da učine zanimljivim ono što nije jednostavno, dok drugi dozlaboga zakomplikuju ono što nije toliko kompleksno. U ovoj knjizi se javlja dobra mera. Za razliku od knjige posvećene Gedelu, sa kojom sam se pomučio, ali koja je odlično napisana, ovde je tekst oblikovan ne samo kroz izuzetnu preciznost, već i tragove humora. Osveživši sećanje na časove logike iz srednje škole, dobio sam uvid i u nešto što mi je novo i još jednom potvrdio koliko očiglednosti mogu da budu varljive. Zdrav razum često navodi na pogrešan trag, a proučavanje logike je opomena na moguća iskliznuća. I mnogo više od toga, naravno, ali drži me utisak da bi nam zaista svima danas dobro došla odgovornost i disciplina u upotrebi uma.
I nešto, makar meni, duhovito:
Amoebas are single-celled water creatures that multiply by fission: an amoeba will split down the middle to become two amoebas. Now, take some amoeba, A, that divides to become two amoebas, B and C. Before the split, both B and C were A. So before the split, B = C. After the split, though, B and C are distinct amoebas, ¬B = C. So if two things are the same, it does not necessarily follow that they are always going to be the same.
I nešto, makar meni, duhovito:
Amoebas are single-celled water creatures that multiply by fission: an amoeba will split down the middle to become two amoebas. Now, take some amoeba, A, that divides to become two amoebas, B and C. Before the split, both B and C were A. So before the split, B = C. After the split, though, B and C are distinct amoebas, ¬B = C. So if two things are the same, it does not necessarily follow that they are always going to be the same.
July 3, 2017
از شیرین ترین خاطرات دوران تحصیلم، کلاس های منطق بودن. استادی که تدریس می کرد به قدری خوب تدریس می کرد و به جای جواب مستقیم دادن مدام معمّا توی ذهن مون ایجاد می کرد و مدام بر می گشت از ابتدا و معمّاها رو حل می کرد و معمّاهای بیشتری جایگزین شون می کرد، که منطق تا مدّت ها درس مورد علاقه م بود. چند سال بعد همچنان با یکی دو تا از بچه هایی که علاقه مند بودن نوارهای درس استادمون رو مجدد گوش می کردیم و یادداشت بر می داشتیم و با هم راجع بهش بحث می کردیم.
همۀ این ها زیر غبار سالیان فراموش شد.
تا این که به توصیۀ بزرگواری، کتاب
Logicomix: An epic search for truth
رو خوندم. زندگینامۀ برتراند راسل، یکی از بزرگ ترین منطقدان های دوران جدید. و دوباره تمام اون خاطرات و طعم شیرین منطق، از زیر گرد و غبار بیرون اومد. دوباره هوس منطق خوندن به سرم افتاد. اما این بار می خواستم منطق جدید رو امتحان کنم. منطقی که من خونده بودم، منطق ارسطویی بود و تقریباً هیچ چیز از منطق جدید نمی دونستم.
این شد که گشتم دنبال یه کتاب مقدماتی خوب. از دوستان گودریدزی پرسیدم، و یکی دو تا کتاب بهم پیشنهاد کردن که مختصر و مفیدترین شون، این کتاب بود. این شد که فوری رفتم خریدمش و چند روزه خوندمش. کتاب خیلی خوب و روانی بود. مخصوصاً با مثال های عالی ای که سر هر بحث می زد، و نشون می داد منطق چطور می تونه توی استدلال های مختلف تأثیرگذار باشه.
به هر حال، بعد از این کتاب باز منطق در اولویت دوم قرار گرفت و باز کم کم غبار فراموشی روش نشست. تا چی بشه که دوباره از زیر غبار بیاد بیرون.
همۀ این ها زیر غبار سالیان فراموش شد.
تا این که به توصیۀ بزرگواری، کتاب
Logicomix: An epic search for truth
رو خوندم. زندگینامۀ برتراند راسل، یکی از بزرگ ترین منطقدان های دوران جدید. و دوباره تمام اون خاطرات و طعم شیرین منطق، از زیر گرد و غبار بیرون اومد. دوباره هوس منطق خوندن به سرم افتاد. اما این بار می خواستم منطق جدید رو امتحان کنم. منطقی که من خونده بودم، منطق ارسطویی بود و تقریباً هیچ چیز از منطق جدید نمی دونستم.
این شد که گشتم دنبال یه کتاب مقدماتی خوب. از دوستان گودریدزی پرسیدم، و یکی دو تا کتاب بهم پیشنهاد کردن که مختصر و مفیدترین شون، این کتاب بود. این شد که فوری رفتم خریدمش و چند روزه خوندمش. کتاب خیلی خوب و روانی بود. مخصوصاً با مثال های عالی ای که سر هر بحث می زد، و نشون می داد منطق چطور می تونه توی استدلال های مختلف تأثیرگذار باشه.
به هر حال، بعد از این کتاب باز منطق در اولویت دوم قرار گرفت و باز کم کم غبار فراموشی روش نشست. تا چی بشه که دوباره از زیر غبار بیاد بیرون.
February 19, 2018
Not bad at all. It's not an easy read though. You should read it carefully.
-
second read: I tried everything possible so that I have a better reading experience. However, the author skips on explaining many of the basic steps that an unfamiliar reader needs to know in in order to understand them. That makes it a very hard read because you have to infer more things about what author means than what their content requires.
-
second read: I tried everything possible so that I have a better reading experience. However, the author skips on explaining many of the basic steps that an unfamiliar reader needs to know in in order to understand them. That makes it a very hard read because you have to infer more things about what author means than what their content requires.
April 13, 2023
کمترین فایده ای که این کتاب داشت این بود که فهمیدم تصوری که در ذهن از منطق (Logic) داشتم کاملا غلط بود و تقریبا هیچی ازین موضوع نمیدونستم
چیزی که در این کتاب مطرح میشه اینه که منطق پایه اصلی و حتی بدنه فعلی ریاضی جدیده
مواردی مثل شرط ها، احتمال و احتمال معکوس، نظریه تصمیم، توابع ارزش و .... که در ریاضیات ( جبر خطی و آمار و احتمالات) روش بحث میشه تماما در منطق دوران ارسطویی متولد شده و در طول تاریخ علی الخصوص قرون وسطی توسعه پیدا کرده
حتی مسائلی مثل اثبات وجود خدا هم از طریق اثبات های ریاضی منبعث از Logic ممکنه
در کل مطالعه کتاب تجربه خوبی بود ولی موضوعاتش اینقدر پیچیده بود که باید دو تصمیم درباره اش گرفت: یا اینکه فقط در حد همین آشنایی رضایت داد یا اینکه دوره خاصی رو به مطالعه تکمیلی عمیق در این حوزه گذروند.
چیزی که در این کتاب مطرح میشه اینه که منطق پایه اصلی و حتی بدنه فعلی ریاضی جدیده
مواردی مثل شرط ها، احتمال و احتمال معکوس، نظریه تصمیم، توابع ارزش و .... که در ریاضیات ( جبر خطی و آمار و احتمالات) روش بحث میشه تماما در منطق دوران ارسطویی متولد شده و در طول تاریخ علی الخصوص قرون وسطی توسعه پیدا کرده
حتی مسائلی مثل اثبات وجود خدا هم از طریق اثبات های ریاضی منبعث از Logic ممکنه
در کل مطالعه کتاب تجربه خوبی بود ولی موضوعاتش اینقدر پیچیده بود که باید دو تصمیم درباره اش گرفت: یا اینکه فقط در حد همین آشنایی رضایت داد یا اینکه دوره خاصی رو به مطالعه تکمیلی عمیق در این حوزه گذروند.
August 22, 2018
It is more a book on history and philosophy of logic than an introduction to logical ways of reasoning. I listened to its audio format.
January 4, 2013
Read with my husband who has a strong background in math, physics, computer science. I can't count the number of times he paused in the reading to say: "okay, he didn't explain that very well," only to follow with a brief explanation or example that made all clear. Although I was familiar with basic logic (truth tables, modus ponens, etc.) things like modal logic and fuzzy logic were completely new concepts to me. I did get a basic overview and very rudimentary understanding of those fields, but to be honest my understanding is due more to hubby's explanations than the text in the book.
August 1, 2013
This is a pretty good introduction to logic. It explains the subject clearly and concisely. And it uses some interesting examples. The explanation of the fallacy in St. Anselm's subtle, but ultimately sophistical, "proof" of God's existence, is a model of careful reasoning and explanation. But the book has some flaws.
First, it focuses on modern symbolic logic, which would be valuable for technical specialists, but not for the intelligent laymen the "Very Short Introduction" series is aimed at. The reader who just wants to think more clearly would typically prefer a verbal and intuitive approach, as in Aristotle's original works on the subject or "Logic Made Easy" by Deborah Bennett.
Second, the book is simply wrong or misleading in certain particulars. It's attack on the cosmological argument for God's existence misses the point entirely. Unlike the ontological proofs offered by Anselm, Descartes and Godel, cosmological arguments are essentially inductive and probable, and thus are not examples of purely logical reasoning. Moreover, in order to defeat this argument, the author has to put it in the most unflattering form.*
As another example, the book attributes to Aristotle the view that everything is predetermined, that all things proceed from necessity and cannot be changed. But this was not Aristotle's view. He wrote that things happen in nature "always or for the most part", so that when quantum theorists like Heisenberg were trying to understand the inherently indeterminate world they were exploring, a world that violated the strict determinism of Newtonian mechanics, they turned to Aristotle, as someone who recognized intuitively that nature could be indeterminate.
And, on a related note, when the author gives as an example of what is strictly impossible the sentence "I will jump out of bed and hover 2m above the ground," due to the violation of gravity implied, he seems unaware of the inherent indeterminacy in modern quantum mechanics which describes such things technically possible (though extremely improbable).
Regardless, this book is worth reading. Because it is a short and lucid account, the reader can get through it quickly. And logic is, sadly, a kind of forgotten subject. If more people were trained in logical thought, more of them would see through the sophistical arguments offered by politicians and pundits who, unlike Anselm, make fairly obvious logical errors and ground their arguments more on emotions than reason.
*Note that when the author deals with a variant on the cosmological argument (which he calls the argument from design) in the context of probability, he does so sophistically. He applies Bayes' Theorem to the argument, in an effort to debunk it. But his application is highly suspect. And, at any rate, an introductory account on logic seems like a strange place to espouse a dogmatic atheism.
Want to read
October 22, 2013This is Paul Bryant's deleted review. According to the email from GR, it was off-topic.
I have flagged this one myself, when it was in Paul's review space. With some over-pretentious ironic or stupid message, I don't remember which.
GR Headquarters might have missed the ironic part. Unless they didn't, but never found it other than serious in the first place. I can't figure out which is more unfortunate.
I guess it's only fair from my part to salvage the content. Here it goes.
PS: There's a funnier side. Its removal, in the same time with non-removal of thousands of other no-actual-reviews, proves it's on-topic.
Take that, logic!
[image of a guy in front of a full tray of reports, lost in deletion]
Another hapless Goodreads employee contemplates his in-tray. It contains reviews which have been flagged for focussing on author behaviour, which is not allowed ("we will now delete these entirely from the site"). Our poor Goodreads employee now has to read through all these flagged reviews to figure out if they do indeed contravene the policy. It's a terrible job, but somebody has to do it.
The flagged reviews are pouring in to the Goodreads office. The ones shown in his in-tray above arrived while he was having a ten minute coffee break. (He'll need something stronger than coffee soon.)
The thing is, what does he do with this beautifully argued review here by the brilliant Manny, which is all about the terrible Holocaust denier David Irving [link lost in deletion] or my own huffy denunciation of the homophobic Orson Scott Card's opinions [link lost in deletion]
These clearly should be zapped. We say loudly that we're not going to read these books and the authors are awful. The New GR Policy was thought up to try to cool things out over there in the YA section, where reviewers and authors have at times, I regret to say, indulged in unseemly name-calling. But there is such a thing as logic and fairness. So if any reviews have been deleted entirely from GR, the above two should by the same rule.
I will be posting a copy of this short introduction to Logic to the GR head office in San Francisco. It might help.
I have flagged this one myself, when it was in Paul's review space. With some over-pretentious ironic or stupid message, I don't remember which.
GR Headquarters might have missed the ironic part. Unless they didn't, but never found it other than serious in the first place. I can't figure out which is more unfortunate.
I guess it's only fair from my part to salvage the content. Here it goes.
PS: There's a funnier side. Its removal, in the same time with non-removal of thousands of other no-actual-reviews, proves it's on-topic.
Take that, logic!
[image of a guy in front of a full tray of reports, lost in deletion]
Another hapless Goodreads employee contemplates his in-tray. It contains reviews which have been flagged for focussing on author behaviour, which is not allowed ("we will now delete these entirely from the site"). Our poor Goodreads employee now has to read through all these flagged reviews to figure out if they do indeed contravene the policy. It's a terrible job, but somebody has to do it.
The flagged reviews are pouring in to the Goodreads office. The ones shown in his in-tray above arrived while he was having a ten minute coffee break. (He'll need something stronger than coffee soon.)
The thing is, what does he do with this beautifully argued review here by the brilliant Manny, which is all about the terrible Holocaust denier David Irving [link lost in deletion] or my own huffy denunciation of the homophobic Orson Scott Card's opinions [link lost in deletion]
These clearly should be zapped. We say loudly that we're not going to read these books and the authors are awful. The New GR Policy was thought up to try to cool things out over there in the YA section, where reviewers and authors have at times, I regret to say, indulged in unseemly name-calling. But there is such a thing as logic and fairness. So if any reviews have been deleted entirely from GR, the above two should by the same rule.
I will be posting a copy of this short introduction to Logic to the GR head office in San Francisco. It might help.
June 15, 2021
Great intro to logic
This book is jam packed with insightful ideologies and theories. I found some of the concepts to be contradictory whilst many of them are still great and logical concepts though.
A lot of math is in this book—which is awesome. I recommend this book for true logicians or philosophy lovers.
This book is jam packed with insightful ideologies and theories. I found some of the concepts to be contradictory whilst many of them are still great and logical concepts though.
A lot of math is in this book—which is awesome. I recommend this book for true logicians or philosophy lovers.
x-y-z
October 31, 2013[the interesting words are in the comments]
I liked this book very much. It has good qualities.
I wholeheartedly recommend that you immediately spend your dollarpounds on this product.
Why not buy two and give one to a friend?
This review was about a book, not an author.
I liked this book very much. It has good qualities.
I wholeheartedly recommend that you immediately spend your dollarpounds on this product.
Why not buy two and give one to a friend?
This review was about a book, not an author.
July 16, 2017
درباب کتاب درآمدی به منطق
این کتاب را سالها پیش مطالعه کردم و متاسفانه محتوای دقیق آن را به خاطر ندارم و خودِ کتاب را هم نتوانستم دوباره پیدا کنم. با این حال به یاد دارم که کتاب بسیار خوب و خواندنی بود و برای آشنایی با منطق بسیار راهگشا بود. از ویژگیهای مهم این کتاب این است که در آن نویسنده نمونههای خلاقانه و جالبی از کاربردهای روزمره منطق در زندگی و نیز در حل مسائل علمی و فلسفی را در هر فصل و هر بخش آورده است. این کار از یکسو به خواننده نشان میدهد که منطق صرفا بحثهایی خشک و خستهکننده نیست، بلکه به عنوان ابزاری کمکی در بسیاری از علوم دیگر نیز کاربرد دارد و به ویژه میتواند در حل کردن یا منحل کردن ِ بسیاری از پرسشهای قدیمی و مهم فلسفه بسیار راهگشا باشد. از سوی دیگر این نمونهها نشان میدهند که همۀ ما چهبسا بیآنکه آگاه باشیم روزانه بارها از منطق استفاده میکنیم. افزون بر این، این نمونهها که با خوشسلیقگی نویسنده انتخاب شدهاند از خشکی ِ ذاتیِ بحثهای منطقی کاسته و خواندن کتاب را دلنشین کردهاند. یکی دیگر از ویژگیهای خوب این کتاب نیز، خلاصههای دقیقی هست که در پایان هر فصل آورده شده است و نیز پرسشهایی که در پایان کتاب به عنوان تمرین آمده است
به هر روی این کتاب برای کسانی که بر آنند با منطق آشنا شوند بسیار مفید است. به ویژه از این جهت که معمولا در کشور ما کتابهایی که برای آشنایی ابتدایی با منطق استفاده میشوند (مانند منطق مظفر) اصولا محدود به مباحث منطق قدیم هستند و تقریبا به طور کامل با منطق جدید و به ویژه کاربردهای منطق در سایر علوم بیگانهاند. اگر اشتباه نکنم ترجمه این کتاب به قلم «امیر دیوانی» نیز ترجمه خوب و روانی بود، هر چند که باز اگر اشتباه نکنم یکی از فصلهای کتاب در ترجمه حذف شده بود (مطمئن نیستم). البته از این کتاب یک ترجمه دیگر نیز به قلم «بهرام اسدیان» از سوی نشر ماهی منتشر شده است
جوینده و پاینده باشید
امین درستی
این کتاب را سالها پیش مطالعه کردم و متاسفانه محتوای دقیق آن را به خاطر ندارم و خودِ کتاب را هم نتوانستم دوباره پیدا کنم. با این حال به یاد دارم که کتاب بسیار خوب و خواندنی بود و برای آشنایی با منطق بسیار راهگشا بود. از ویژگیهای مهم این کتاب این است که در آن نویسنده نمونههای خلاقانه و جالبی از کاربردهای روزمره منطق در زندگی و نیز در حل مسائل علمی و فلسفی را در هر فصل و هر بخش آورده است. این کار از یکسو به خواننده نشان میدهد که منطق صرفا بحثهایی خشک و خستهکننده نیست، بلکه به عنوان ابزاری کمکی در بسیاری از علوم دیگر نیز کاربرد دارد و به ویژه میتواند در حل کردن یا منحل کردن ِ بسیاری از پرسشهای قدیمی و مهم فلسفه بسیار راهگشا باشد. از سوی دیگر این نمونهها نشان میدهند که همۀ ما چهبسا بیآنکه آگاه باشیم روزانه بارها از منطق استفاده میکنیم. افزون بر این، این نمونهها که با خوشسلیقگی نویسنده انتخاب شدهاند از خشکی ِ ذاتیِ بحثهای منطقی کاسته و خواندن کتاب را دلنشین کردهاند. یکی دیگر از ویژگیهای خوب این کتاب نیز، خلاصههای دقیقی هست که در پایان هر فصل آورده شده است و نیز پرسشهایی که در پایان کتاب به عنوان تمرین آمده است
به هر روی این کتاب برای کسانی که بر آنند با منطق آشنا شوند بسیار مفید است. به ویژه از این جهت که معمولا در کشور ما کتابهایی که برای آشنایی ابتدایی با منطق استفاده میشوند (مانند منطق مظفر) اصولا محدود به مباحث منطق قدیم هستند و تقریبا به طور کامل با منطق جدید و به ویژه کاربردهای منطق در سایر علوم بیگانهاند. اگر اشتباه نکنم ترجمه این کتاب به قلم «امیر دیوانی» نیز ترجمه خوب و روانی بود، هر چند که باز اگر اشتباه نکنم یکی از فصلهای کتاب در ترجمه حذف شده بود (مطمئن نیستم). البته از این کتاب یک ترجمه دیگر نیز به قلم «بهرام اسدیان» از سوی نشر ماهی منتشر شده است
جوینده و پاینده باشید
امین درستی
October 11, 2016
طرح بحث و صورت بندی خیلی خوبی از تعدادی سرفصل های مهم در منطق داره
به ویژه صورت بندی سمبلیک از برهان شرط بندی پاسکال و نقشه ی شیطانی ِ "کار فردا را به امروز مفکن!" برایم جالب بود
به ویژه صورت بندی سمبلیک از برهان شرط بندی پاسکال و نقشه ی شیطانی ِ "کار فردا را به امروز مفکن!" برایم جالب بود
Read
June 30, 2025Tras un año en un máster de lógica he leído un libro de Lógica!!!!
Y resulta que es uno super super básico, explica solo lo más clave en un lenguaje que se entiende perfectamente y con un glosario al final.
Creo que es una muy buena introducción la verdad, ir de la mano con uno de los lógicos más importantes creo que es una muy buena estrategia
Y resulta que es uno super super básico, explica solo lo más clave en un lenguaje que se entiende perfectamente y con un glosario al final.
Creo que es una muy buena introducción la verdad, ir de la mano con uno de los lógicos más importantes creo que es una muy buena estrategia
October 15, 2021
نسخه ی فارسیِ نشر ماهی رو خواندم. تصاویر رو برخی جاها پس و پیش گذاشته بد ولی در کل ترجمه ی خوبی بود. ولی خود کتاب خوب نیست. یعنی اگر گمان کنید که منطق بهتون یاد میده باید گفت که بیشتر چیستی منطق یا فلسفه منطق هست.
یه حرکت ضایعی هم که میکرد این بود که که توی این سطح از کتاب میومد و یهو مثلا برای تمرین و نمونه برهان وجود خدا و برهان نظم رو بررسی میکرد. مثل اینه که به یه نفر الفبا رو یاد بدی بعد که الفبا رو شکسته-بسته یاد گرفت بگی حالا بشین بیهقی رو تمرین کن
منم مریض بودم تا آخرش خواندمش. در کل که کارمون با منطق هنوز تموم نشده و هزار باده ناخورده در خون تاک است هنوز
یه حرکت ضایعی هم که میکرد این بود که که توی این سطح از کتاب میومد و یهو مثلا برای تمرین و نمونه برهان وجود خدا و برهان نظم رو بررسی میکرد. مثل اینه که به یه نفر الفبا رو یاد بدی بعد که الفبا رو شکسته-بسته یاد گرفت بگی حالا بشین بیهقی رو تمرین کن
منم مریض بودم تا آخرش خواندمش. در کل که کارمون با منطق هنوز تموم نشده و هزار باده ناخورده در خون تاک است هنوز
July 17, 2011
This is a decent book, but the audience is really limited. I would recommend it to an undergraduate studying philosophy, but not to someone just interested in getting some basic familiarity with logic. Some of the chapters would help to that end, but others are largely designed to tackle certain philosophical problems or arguments using the tools that logicians have given us over the centuries. And I suspect that a much clearer (i.e. more understandable) explanation of most of that stuff can be found elsewhere.
October 14, 2020
The author takes too many semantic liberties in arguments that wrench at denying the existence of God. Again, shoddy examples of Modern Logic trying to circumvent the Law of Non-Contradiction, and the exclusivity of truth.
He is a good writer, and I enjoyed his sense of humor; however, this platform was ill-used in airing out his religious bias.
He is a good writer, and I enjoyed his sense of humor; however, this platform was ill-used in airing out his religious bias.
September 1, 2021
مدخلی است در توضیح مفاهیم و نمادهای منطقی بدون استفاده از از زبان ریاضی
از مجموعه در آمدی کوتاه بر ... آکسفورد هرچه خواندم یک از یک بهتر بودند. این کتاب هم مثل دیگر کتابهای مجموعه درجه یک بود. در هر زمینه ای که مایل به مطالعه هستید اگر کتابی از این مجموعه در آن باره نوشته شده بود، در خواندنش تردید نکنید. چه ترجمه و چه ترجیحا زبان اصلی
از مجموعه در آمدی کوتاه بر ... آکسفورد هرچه خواندم یک از یک بهتر بودند. این کتاب هم مثل دیگر کتابهای مجموعه درجه یک بود. در هر زمینه ای که مایل به مطالعه هستید اگر کتابی از این مجموعه در آن باره نوشته شده بود، در خواندنش تردید نکنید. چه ترجمه و چه ترجیحا زبان اصلی
April 13, 2017
Logic, along with ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics, is commonly considered to be among the main branches of philosophy. Any systematic approach to learn philosophy should encompass a solid foundation building in logic. Philosophy is a fundamental component to all areas of human inquiry while logic is the fundamental basis on which philosophy itself operates.
This book is dense, Priest hasn't wasted any words. Lose the thread and you suddenly find yourself in need of rehearsing the entire chapter. The chapters cannot be read independently like many other books on this topic, they rather build upon the concepts that were introduced in the previous chapter. Yes, "Very Short" indeed, but impenetrable at times.
For some reason, Priest is especially fond of tinkering with the logic behind the arguments concerned with God's existence.
This book is dense, Priest hasn't wasted any words. Lose the thread and you suddenly find yourself in need of rehearsing the entire chapter. The chapters cannot be read independently like many other books on this topic, they rather build upon the concepts that were introduced in the previous chapter. Yes, "Very Short" indeed, but impenetrable at times.
For some reason, Priest is especially fond of tinkering with the logic behind the arguments concerned with God's existence.
May 19, 2014
The star rating given reflects my opinion within ‘the official goodreads rating system’.
1 star: Didn’t Like it
2 stars: It’s Okay
3 stars: Liked it
4 stars: Really Liked it
5 stars: It Was Amazing
I don’t really give a rat-fuck that there are some who think I ‘owe’ an explanation for my opinion. Nope, nada, and not sorry about it.
Sometimes I may add notes to explain what my opinions are based on, and sometimes I don’t. I do this for me, on my books, in my library and I don’t ‘owe’ any special snowflakes a thing. Fuck off if you don’t like it and stop reading my shit.
Particularly given the ‘modifications’ to reader’s personal content going on (and outright censorship), unless particularly motivated I will not comment in detail.
It would help if GR was forthcoming in the new ‘appropriate’ and would make a site-wide announcement delineating the new focus from a reader-centric site to one that is now for authors and selling.
September 2, 2021
first time ever looking at logic, and i actually enjoyed it much more than i thought i would
February 26, 2023
It is exactly what the tittle suggests. This book is difficult to read, if such books are new to you. I think it is worth the struggle, especially in a culture that puts the heart before the logic as a general rule.
August 26, 2013
I enjoyed this book a lot, and enjoyed trying to work out the problems myself. I remember less high school mathematics than I did at my final exam - and that was not a lot either - but at least reasoning things out seems to help with logic! Despite enjoying this book, I think Priest isn't as lucid as he should be in the later chapters once numeric values and algebra start featuring more prominently. Perhaps this book bit off a little more than it could chew? Still, a stimulating little book. Logic is fun!
January 3, 2018
I think Logic can be introduced more elegant, more straightforward, and even more accurate than this. I found certain chapters very basic and at times borderline inaccurate and towards the end it just turned into a Theology book which I really didn't appreciate especially considering the author's shallow understanding of theology. There are so many better logic books out there.
September 25, 2024
The author is excessively obsessed with trying to prove the non-existence of God. Maybe he should have become a theologian like Richard Dawkins instead of a logician?
Also listening as an audiobook proved very difficult.
Also listening as an audiobook proved very difficult.
July 26, 2024
دوست دارم برای خودم ثبت کنم که بعد از تمام کنکاشهای چند وقت اخیر، به لطف مثالهای ملموسی که داشت، با منطق دوستتر شدم و من رو از نقطه "منطق بسه دیگه" به میل خواندن بیشتر سوق داد!
January 6, 2026
" [whether the conclusions follow from the premises] is what logic is concerned with. It is not concerned with whether the premises of an inference are true or false."
"Logicians call an inference [in which the premises couldn't be true without the conclusion also being true, i.e. the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises], deductively valid. Inductively valid inferences are not completely conclusive (and it's possible for the conclusion to be wrong, but it's more likely for it to be right). [...] We reason inductively all the time; for example, in trying to solve problems such as why the car has broken down, why a person is ill, or who committed a crime. Sherlock Holmes was a master of it."
"One might object to [the cosmological argument for the existence of God] in various ways. But at its heart, there is an enormous logical fallacy. The sentence 'Everything has a cause' is ambiguous. It can mean that everything that happens has some cause or other - that is, for every x, there is a y, such that x is caused by y; or it can mean theat there is something which is the cause of everything."
"...no object persists through any change whatsoever. For any change means that the old object goes out of existence, and is replaced by a quite different object. [...] logiiancs now agree that these arguments rest on a single ambiguity. We must distinguish between an object and its properties. When we say that you, with a different hairstyle, are different, we are saying that you have different properties. It does not follow that you are literally a different person, in the way that I am a different person from you. [...] If we say 'The table is red', 'Your hair is now short' and similar things, we are attributing a property to an object. But if someone says 'I am Graham Priest', 'The person who won teh race is the same person who won it last year', and so on, then they are identifying an object in a certain way. THat is, they are stating its identity."
"Leibniz's Law [consists of the fact that] for any objects, x and y, if x = y , then x has any properties that y has, and vice versa. i.e,
John is the person who won the race,
The person who won the race got a price
Therefore John got a prize.
[...] There seem to be many counter-examples to [Leibniz's Law]. Consider the following inference:
John is the person who won the race
Mary knows that the person who won the race got a prize
So, Mary knows that John got a prize"
"In a reductio ad absurdum proof, we assume the opposite of what it is we are trying to prove, then show this leads to something unacceptable."
"Logicians call an inference [in which the premises couldn't be true without the conclusion also being true, i.e. the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises], deductively valid. Inductively valid inferences are not completely conclusive (and it's possible for the conclusion to be wrong, but it's more likely for it to be right). [...] We reason inductively all the time; for example, in trying to solve problems such as why the car has broken down, why a person is ill, or who committed a crime. Sherlock Holmes was a master of it."
"One might object to [the cosmological argument for the existence of God] in various ways. But at its heart, there is an enormous logical fallacy. The sentence 'Everything has a cause' is ambiguous. It can mean that everything that happens has some cause or other - that is, for every x, there is a y, such that x is caused by y; or it can mean theat there is something which is the cause of everything."
"...no object persists through any change whatsoever. For any change means that the old object goes out of existence, and is replaced by a quite different object. [...] logiiancs now agree that these arguments rest on a single ambiguity. We must distinguish between an object and its properties. When we say that you, with a different hairstyle, are different, we are saying that you have different properties. It does not follow that you are literally a different person, in the way that I am a different person from you. [...] If we say 'The table is red', 'Your hair is now short' and similar things, we are attributing a property to an object. But if someone says 'I am Graham Priest', 'The person who won teh race is the same person who won it last year', and so on, then they are identifying an object in a certain way. THat is, they are stating its identity."
"Leibniz's Law [consists of the fact that] for any objects, x and y, if x = y , then x has any properties that y has, and vice versa. i.e,
John is the person who won the race,
The person who won the race got a price
Therefore John got a prize.
[...] There seem to be many counter-examples to [Leibniz's Law]. Consider the following inference:
John is the person who won the race
Mary knows that the person who won the race got a prize
So, Mary knows that John got a prize"
"In a reductio ad absurdum proof, we assume the opposite of what it is we are trying to prove, then show this leads to something unacceptable."
March 2, 2023
For a century and a half or longer, nonsense, illogic, and absurdity have been on the rise, in the world itself as well as in the arts and entertainments—and to some degree even in the sciences and other constructs—by which we address it. But logic hasn’t stood still during that time. We now understand pretty well how—when we want to do it—we can draw valid conclusions from premises, how to deal with probabilities when we don’t have certainties, what algorithms can and can’t do, even what’s shaky in the foundations of mathematics. In other words, logic itself has gotten better at dealing with the situation described in Jefferson Airplane’s “White Rabbit” song, in which “logic and proportion / have fallen sloppy dead.”
This little book, as dense and potent as espresso, surveys nearly all of that. “White Rabbit” isn’t in here, but Lewis Carroll is, in the company of figures ranging from Aristotle and Eubulides (originator of paradoxes such as “This sentence is false”) through Pascal and Leibniz and Bayes to Russell and Turing and Gödel. Sherlock Holmes’s deductions are touched on, and so is the reason they’d more properly be called inductions. God himself is here, insofar as a few arguments for his existence and for believing in him are addressed. So, like espresso, this book may best be taken in small quantities. It’s heady stuff—a good way to follow that song’s concluding advice to feed your head.
This little book, as dense and potent as espresso, surveys nearly all of that. “White Rabbit” isn’t in here, but Lewis Carroll is, in the company of figures ranging from Aristotle and Eubulides (originator of paradoxes such as “This sentence is false”) through Pascal and Leibniz and Bayes to Russell and Turing and Gödel. Sherlock Holmes’s deductions are touched on, and so is the reason they’d more properly be called inductions. God himself is here, insofar as a few arguments for his existence and for believing in him are addressed. So, like espresso, this book may best be taken in small quantities. It’s heady stuff—a good way to follow that song’s concluding advice to feed your head.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 198 reviews