Philosophy guide: seeking bright minds for review

[ImprobableJoe]

Ooohhh!!! I'll take up the torch!

...and use it to burn philosophy to the GROUND!!!! :lol:

 

[Andiferous]

Awesome, if you can use philosophy to do so.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Masterghostknight: I do believe that basic logic is the foundation for philosophical argument. To be honest, when I studied logic my trouble started just after the point when arguments were reduced to symbols, made more and more complex, and eventually looked like calculus.

That happens very often but you shouldn't feel overwelmed by it. Actual phrases are not necessary to follow the logical rules, the benefit of being as generic as they can be is that you will know how it fundamentaly works and you can apply that to anything and everything.
The sameway we do not laern addition by memorizing every possible combination of numbers, you learn how it functions and you put the numbers you want later (sameway you learn how logic functions and you put the sentences you want later).

 

[DanDare]

Formal logic is not the be all and end all of philosophy. There's epistemology, ethics, aesthetics. Boolean logic does not properly handle indeterminate sets (informally known as fuzzy sets / fuzzy logic), of which it is a sub set.
Consider a car parked in parking space B, except its front left wheel is in parking space A. Is it TRUE that the car is parked in parking space B?
Regarding fallacies, they are broader than you suggest. Many are descriptions of how a conclusion does not follow from a given proposal. Others suggest that a conclusion is not a necessary outcome from a given proposal.
I am human, humans can be men, therefore I am a man. The conclusion here is only one of a series of possible things I could be, so the conclusion is inconclusive.