Thread by @EveKeneinan

Boole held that Aristotle’s logic was entirely VALID and CONSISTENT. He wanted to extend it, because he thought it was INCOMPLETE.

So modern logic is COMPLETE in a way ANCIENT logic is not.

But as Gödel showed, a formal system which IS COMPLETE is INCONSISTENT.

So you might do well to reflect on which is preferable:

A system of logic which may be INCOMPLETE, but is entirely CONSISTENT, or

A system of logic which is COMPLETE but INCONSISTENT with itself.

I know where I side.

Another point regarding Aristotelian logic vs modern logic is practical: Aristotelian logic is rather like the addition, subtraction, division, and multiplication of logic. Modern logic is more akin to calculus.

If you *need* calculus in your life, by all means! But do you?

EVERYONE needs addition, subtraction, division, and multiplication—and Aristotelian logic.

VERY FEW PEOPLE *need* calculus or modern predicate calculus logic. If you do, that’s fine, but MOST people do not.

Indeed, we’re kind of in a place where one of the ONLY reasons one would need modern predicate calculus logic is to be able to read other people who use it—which makes it MERELY a jargon.