Philosophical Logic

by John P. Burgess

"Philosophical Logic" is a clear and concise critical survey of nonclassical logics of philosophical interest written by one of the world's leading authorities on the subject. After giving an overview of classical logic, John Burgess introduces five central branches of nonclassical logic (temporal, modal, conditional, relevantistic, and intuitionistic), focusing on the sometimes problematic relationship between formal apparatus and intuitive motivation. Requiring minimal background and arranged to make the more technical material optional, the book offers a choice between an overview and in-depth study, and it balances the philosophical and technical aspects of the subject.

The book emphasizes the relationship between models and the traditional goal of logic, the evaluation of arguments, and critically examines apparatus and assumptions that often are taken for granted. "Philosophical Logic" provides an unusually thorough treatment of conditional logic, unifying probabilistic and model-theoretic approaches. It underscores the variety of approaches that have been taken to relevantistic and related logics, and it stresses the problem of connecting formal systems to the motivating ideas behind intuitionistic mathematics. Each chapter ends with a brief guide to further reading.

"Philosophical Logic" addresses students new to logic, philosophers working in other areas, and specialists in logic, providing both a sophisticated introduction and a new synthesis.

Genres: Philosophy, Logic, Nonfiction

153 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2009

About the author

John P. Burgess (PhD, University of Chicago) is James Henry Snowden Professor of Systematic Theology at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. He is the author of several books, including Holy Rus': The Rebirth of Orthodoxy in the New Russia, Encounters with Orthodoxy: How Protestant Churches Can Reform Themselves Again, and Why Scripture Matters: Reading the Bible in a Time of Church Conflict.

Reviews

[meadow · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a decent introduction to non-classical logic, but it suffers from being too concise. The lack of exercises in the name of conciseness doesn't really make a lot of sense. At least he's posted the exercises online (though this makes one wonder why he didn't just throw them in at the end of each chapter.) This is probably not the book to use as a primary source for teaching yourself non-classical logic, but it worked well in the course I took. Additionally, at the end of each chapter, Burgess mentions other sources to look into, so if you were to teach yourself using this book, you would at least have plenty of additional resources.

Still, this book does cover a lot of material and I don't really know that there's another text that really serves as a better introduction.

[Jens · Rating 1 out of 5]

It's like he really didn't want to write a book but they made him do it, so he did it really shitty so they would never ask him again. To write the least amount possible he also outsourced half his book to the reader as "exercises".
Even my own professor continually makes jokes on how bad (non-existent) the explanations are. Why he is using this book is a mystery to me though.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

A prerequisite to benefiting from Burgess' Philosophical Logic is at least one introductory course in symbolic logic. Many readers will likely be amused at what the professional philosophers quoted on the back cover consider "lively" and "accessible." Indeed, I have seen at least one other review on Goodreads that suggested this book was pointlessly redundant--anyone even interested in philosophical logic would, the reviewer assumed, already know this stuff. Said reviewer needs to lift their head out of academic ghetto and realize that there needs to be a wider variety of gradations of "introductory" and "intermediate" texts on such subjects. On the whole, this reader found Burgess's book useful, in some places still unintentionally difficult to follow, but also holding out the distinct possibility of repaying close and repeated readings.

[David Nathans · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ok. As someone who is only acquainted with classical logic, it had for too little introduction and explanation of non classical ones

[Erik · Rating 4 out of 5]

I wish I'd had this in graduate school for Modal and Intuitionist logics. Having the basics in one place is very helpful with a minimum of philosophical interpretation.