Eager_Logician

What defines a rational being to be rational? For example, in economics there is the assumption that everyone is "rationally selif-interested" and then the homo economicus turns around and acts irrationally. I would like someone's help here, for I cannot possibly understand the reasoning; with these three axioms, how does Rand deduce the standard of "rational life"? It doesn't seem to follow her political philosophy either. If "A=A", then good philosophy helps rational beings live. If a good philosophy helps rational beings live, then capitalism is a good philosophy? I can follow the second conditional, but not the first.

I suppose this is true; however, logic doesn't simply generate a philosophy out of thin air. Logic is a tool to help create a philosophy. I think it was Henri Poincare who pointed out that any consistent axiom system is just as valid as any other consistent axiom system. Every philosophy begins with axioms, whether they admit to it or not, and if the axioms are consistent then the systems are just as "valid". How should one thereby judge a philosophy to be a good philosophy?

Formalising arguments, and I'm interested. Thanks for the book list, LauricAcid, I'll look some of them up.

By logic I mean propositional logic (and predicate logic). And by 'perfect' I mean 'to become more skilled at'.

I am an undergrad student interested in logic. I really don't care much about philosophy, but I am absolutely fascinated with logic. But this in neither here nor there. What I would like to know is how do you perfect your logic? Is there some sort of exercise book, or text book?