>This appears to be a philosophy text, to my cursory glance. Definitely not like the advanced math texts I have read.

It is absolutely not a philosophy text. It's an attempt at defining a rigorous definition of the basic axioms we take for granted in mathematics in terms of pure logic, and then examining whether those basic rules of logic are themselves irreducible forms of nature or further creations of man. Essentially it seeks to support all higher mathematical thought by not just taking axioms for granted, but formally proving every one.

You say that, and I'm aware of the historical context. But you cannot deny that the majority of the text is devoted to questions like which verbs are appropriate and how words as used in mathematics relate to their notions used in math.

In my experience, logic falls into two catgeories: using math to study a formal system of logic; and determining "foundations for all math" and determining what is an "irreducible form of nature" and other such prosaic things (can the phrase "such that" be defined?). In my humble opinion, the former is mathematics and the latter philosophy.

This is not a nitpick, I'm actually curious: When you say "absolutely not a philosophy text" do you mean that it's definitely not 100% philosophy? Or do you mean that it's actually 0% philosophy?