I am trying to write an article on the importance of the study of logic and reason to understand the stand of philosophy. Can anybody share their views on this stand?
In Medieval Europe, the study of logic and reason was closely allied with the study of theology. This arguably reached its peak with the publication of St Thomas Aquinas' influential (and lengthy) masterwork of Aristotelian logic-based theology, the Summa Theologica.
In more modern times, however, the disciplines have largely parted ways, at least in the English speaking world. Modern logic was developed through the analytical school of philosophy, whose leading figures, such as Bertrand Russell, have often been atheistic. Conversely modern Christianity has moved away from logical and intellectual defenses of faith, and towards a more directly spiritual and emotional connection with the divine.
Some people might still consider logic and reason a prerequisite for the study of theology, but I'd imagine that's more likely a minority opinion than a common expectation.
Doesn't the application of logic and reason to our world lead to us having a measure of the truth in the nature of the world we observe? Its application in the nature of understanding the spiritual we intuitively perceive as part of the world is an attempt to turn intuition into a truth, like the approach attempts in the physical world.
It occurs to me that if we determine the truth of the spiritual we remove faith, and that removes an important factor in the formation of religion. Faith as my understanding is the strength that underpins religion as you have to overcome the weight of doubt by believing it to be the truth when it is not proved to be so, which is a personal big leap and requires strength of character.
If the pursuit in the application of logic results in certainty and fact, the value of faith by its loss, I think, weakens religion and the importance faith gives it.
Logic, in its modern form, is purely about syntax. It simply ignores semantics.
Hegel's logic took both into consideration. His logic takes the form of a dialectic through the triadic moments of thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis. The synthesis sublates the two preceding moments into itself. He calls it a logic because he says the form that the forward and ascending dialectic takes is the form of necessity, and this is what characterizes logic.
Given what @Gordan says, his logic was probably informed by a medieval understanding of what logic consists of, being closely allied to theology. After all, Hegel wrote about the absolute spirit.