I’ll tell you what I called logic after taking a bunch of mathematics: EASY!
I think mathematicians are better at considering things in isolation than logicians are (I knew plenty of each among my professors). Philosophy is basically 80%-90% noticing other people’s hidden assumptions. In math either a statement is proven or it isn’t. And if it isn’t you don’t have a debate, the proof just doesn’t work.
I was thinking about this too. I mean, classical logic - two truth values and a NAND gate - seems pretty baked into mathematics, but I don’t think you’d find mathematicians especially perturbed if you said, “Oh, I’m using three truth values and this operator…” I think mathematicians would be the least perturbed of all people, really. I wonder what the limits of that are. I’m trying to imagine a system of assigning truth values to statements that would be really different, but I guess it’s too far out of my own internal workings.
It feels like the only think I can think of that that is ultimately just incompatible with approach is a system where context is everything, like (probably) the actual underlying universe.
