I remember puzzling over the mathematical definition of "implies" in first year CS. I understand why it is defined the way it is in the context of mathematical

I remember puzzling over the mathematical definition of "implies" in first year CS. I understand why it is defined the way it is in the context of mathematical logic, but I always puzzled at a deeper issue: when were we going to learn how connect symbolic logic to reality? Combining the truth values of P and Q seemed relatively straightforward. But how did you work out those truth values in the first place? How did ambigous words apply to a complex reality? I later found out that Aristotelian logic held the answers, and modern symbolic logic was a weird set of mathematical formalisms that wrenched out one part of classical logic (propositions) but omitted the theory of terms (concepts), without which, logic becomes a system of meaningless symbol games. This is the book that showed me a world of logic both perfectly rigorous and perfectly descriptive of human cognition: https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Objectivist-Epistemology-Expanded-Second-ebook/dp/B002OSXD8C https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Objectivist-Epistemology... (if the author's name triggers you, obviously this book is not for you, but if you enjoy far-out intellectual adventures, you'll be in for a mind-blowing ride).