When dealing with logic aren't we supposed to question logic, as though what caused it and why it is and therefore ask or beg the question, "Can our basic understanding of logic be logical?" "Is the logic of logic logical?" and are there any clear answer for these questions.

This might be meta-philosophical and that meta-philosophy is not a "thing" usually nowadays, at least, I don't know a case where meta-philosophy is actively being practiced or studied.

  • 2
    I think it's a good question, and I think the answer is unsatisfyingly No, logic isn't exactly logical. In other words, you can't prove logic logically. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
    – TKoL
    Mar 28 at 7:19
  • 1
    @TKoL thank you so much for the reference and I did have an inclination as to this being the case.
    – How why e
    Mar 28 at 7:20
  • 2
    Logic as a "faculty" (i.e. reasoning) is embedded into language and we always (and unavoidably) use language to speak of language. Boys learn gramamr at school using language and books: it is "circular" but (usually) it works. Mar 28 at 7:28
  • 1
    Formal logic is based on "formalization": develop an artificial language based on strict syntactical rules and rigorous semantics. Then we study properties of formal systems and language, usually using mathematical tools, and this is a branch of mathematics. Mar 28 at 7:29
  • 2
    Questions like "Is the logic of logic logical?" are quite useless and often meaningless... When ìsomeone says "Is the logic of logic logical?" what he means? That we can study rigorously ("logically") formal logical systems? We do it. That there is some overarching "logic" governing all formal (logical) systems? Maybe not... That there is a unique human faculty (logic, reason) governing all human facts? It seems not. Mar 28 at 7:32

1 Answer 1


Logicians, studying logic, have concluded that there are an infinity of logics. This discovery is called logical pluralism. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/think/article/abs/guide-to-logical-pluralism-for-nonlogicians/EDFDFA1C9EB65DB71848DABD6B12D877

What an infinity of logics means to our world, is that we can postulate that aspects of our world follow a specific logic, then apply empiricism to evaluate this hypothesis. Logic theory would be infinite, but the logic of our world, would be an issue to study empirically.

We seem to be born with an intrinsic logic sense. Evolution gifted us with an assumed logic. Studies of our reasoning, however, quickly show that our intrinsic "logic" is self contradictory. However, apply that intuitive logic to testing and refining itself, and the classical logic of the ancient Greeks is basically what falls out. IF we assume that evolution would tune us to use the most useful logic, then classical logic should be our assumed starting point in trying to test the world for what logic it follows.

There are known problems with classical logic. One is its failings with absolutes and infinites (leading to many of the contradictions and paradoxes identified in classical philosophy). Of great concern when one treats logic as an empirical enterprise, is that empiricism uses a 4-state logic (unknown, supported, challenged, and unevaluable), while classical logic uses only two states (true and false) and declares all four empirical states to violate the Law of the Excluded Middle. Classical logic therefore is a useful tool in much of our world, but it appears to only be a useful "engineering approximation", which per its own criteria would make it "false".

  • 1
    we can postulate that aspects of our world follow a specific logic, then apply empiricism to evaluate this hypothesis. - love it
    – TKoL
    Mar 28 at 9:48

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .