An Introduction to Philosophical Logic

by A.C. Grayling

'What Grayling's book aims to introduce its readers to is nothing less than ... the most distinctive preoccupation of twentieth-century English-speaking philosophy: its belief in the central importance of philosophical logic ... In supplying a rationalised account of the main twists and turns taken by this dominant trend ... Grayling has succeeded admirably.'
Crispin Wright, Times Higher Education Supplement

An Introduction to Philosophical Logic is a popular mainstay among students taking courses in philosophical logic and the philosophy of language. Covering some of the most central topics in philosophy --- the proposition, theories of truth, existence, meaning and reference, realism and anti-realism --- it aims to be an accessible guide to philosophical logic.

This new edition keeps the same successful format, with each chapter providing a self-contained introduction to the topic it discusses, rewritten to include updated information. The author has also revised his concluding chapter and completely updated the bibliography.

A. C. Grayling
The author is Lecturer in Philosophy at Birkbeck College, London and a Fellow of St Anne's College, Oxford. His other publications include Philosophy 2 (1998), Moral Values (1998), Russell (1996), Philosophy 1 (1995), Wittgenstein (1988), Berkeley: The Central Arguments (1986), and The Refutation of Scepticism (1985).

Genres: Philosophy, Logic, Nonfiction, Metaphysics

343 pages, Paperback

First published September 28, 1982

About the author

Anthony Clifford "A. C." Grayling is a British philosopher. In 2011 he founded and became the first Master of New College of the Humanities, an independent undergraduate college in London. Until June 2011, he was Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck, University of London, where he taught from 1991. He is also a supernumerary fellow of St Anne's College, Oxford.

He is a director and contributor at Prospect Magazine, as well as a Vice President of the British Humanist Association. His main academic interests lie in epistemology, metaphysics and philosophical logic. He has described himself as "a man of the left" and is associated in Britain with the new atheism movement, and is sometimes described as the 'Fifth Horseman of New Atheism'. He appears in the British media discussing philosophy.

Reviews

[Luther Wilson]

This book covers many areas which are central to analytic philosophy and which a beginner such as myself needs to be aware of. To quote the introduction, "...This has the concomitant virtue of familiarizing the neomath with who said what, why, and where." (Did he say "neomath"?)

Anyway here's the chapter list:

1.) Philosophical Logic, the Philosophy of Logic, Philosophy and Logic

2.) The Proposition

3.) Necessity, Analyticity, and the A Priori

4.) Existence, Presuppositions, and Descriptions

5.) Truth: The Pragmatic, Coherence, and Correspondence Theories

6.) Truth: Semantics, Deflation, Indefinability and Evalutation

7.) Meaning, Reference, Verification and Use

8.) Truth, Meaning, Realism, and Anti-realism

9.) Realism, Anti-realism, Idealism, Relativism


I found that as promised, this book introduced me to ideas and people that I need to learn about, in order to pursue reading "analytic" philosophy. From here, I've moved on to Hilary Putnam...

[Kimberly · Rating 5 out of 5]

I find this a solid articulate book aimed at beginners or "new swimmers." It provides worthwhile tour of analytic philosophy.
It's the third time I've read it. As a newbie philosopher every time it's an enjoyable formalization of my thoughts. There are some things I don't use often and I find the book is a good refresher.
It helps too, to read exceptional writing. and this book is organized and written clearly.
I think it's a worthwhile read for anyone. But it could be dense for absolute first comers to philosophy. Stick it out, it's worth it.

[Faust0 · Rating 3 out of 5]

My biggest criticism of this book is that it´s portrayed as an introduction, and it's definitely not. An introductory book presupposes little to no prior knowledge of the field in question, and there are many instances in this work where key and/or complicated terms are taken for granted. I´d say titling it an ''Overview'' would have been much more accurate, or clarifying that it´s in Introduction for the intermediate or advanced student of logic (I don´t know enough about the topic to say which one it is, but certainly not for the complete novice, which is what an introduction is designed for). There's nothing wrong with writing a book, say on the frontier of biological knowledge of electrical interaction of human cell membranes. But if its title is "An Introduction to Human Physiology", then suddenly, everything is wrong with the book.

Another similar complaint is the book's general layout: "Quine says this, however, Strawson says otherwise. This is further supported by Davidson and Tasrky when they say that..." This is the format of a scientific, philosophical, etc, academic paper, published in a peer-reviewed journal. It doesn't belong to an introductory text. I think a quick acknowledgement of the further complexities not explored in the book or lack of expert consensus on some of these issues would have sufficed for the author to then provide just a few definitions of the questions of logic, and a general layout of the topics most relevant to today. Clear, short-ish, simple (or even simplified) concepts would have been much more appropriate for an introduction. As a good example, clear, simple definitions and contrasting concepts are provided in the subchapter "Anti-realism and Idealism" (although he quickly mentions the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. Something, again, that should have come with a brief definition and not presupposing the reader's familiarity with this concept). This is within the last ten pages of the text, but should have been the tone of the book from the beginning, and if complexity is desired by the author, it should have been put in the exact opposite order: simpler explanations of the concepts at the beginning, more nuanced ones at the end.

This comes from a person who´s spent the last 4 years reading exclusively philosophy, and this being my second book on logic.

I´m still giving it 3 stars because there is a wealth of fascinating concepts in this book. And just to restate my core complaint so that it´s not misunderstood, it´s that there is a mislabeling of the book, given its content.