Non-Aristotelian logics are the answer to the questions of the kind hearted persons: yes, there are more gradated, more subtle logics, which are better in the domain of consciousness, and which are naturally used by our brain, what we call intuition. And these logics, instead of hardening oppositions into conflicts, bring on the countrary understanding and peaceful cohabitation.
However the word «logic» is often blathered in current language. We say «it is logical» for a thing which seems obvious to us, or we are strongly grasping on it. For instance a racist will say that a discriminatory law is «logical», while a hippie will say it is «logical» to legalise marijuana. But each is as false as the other, they just want to prove to themselve that what they like is real. The problem is that this neurotic thinking is not only among some groups, it is also the absolute rule in politics and in the medias. And here, it is really saddening to see those who pretend to educate us, speaking to us with the confused mind of a three years old Intellectual Quotient.
In reality, we can actually say «it is logical» only if what we say arises from reasoning. If it is Aristotelian logic, what we say proceeds from well formed statements, and sentences containing «and», «or», «if», «therefore»... If it is quadripolar logic, «it is logical» means that the situation can be placed into a diagram, allowing for infering the existence of a fourth pole when we already know three, or recognising reciprocal or homonymous situations. Any other kind of speech claiming to be «logical», like saying that a discriminatory law «is logical», simply arises from confusion or neurosis.
Especially, we have numerous expressions like «logic of war» or «logic of the heart», which are abuses of language, antipathetic or sympathetic, but abuses in both cases, because it does not exist logical reasoning modes peculiar to such or such situation. Whatever time is at war or at peace, whatever we are in the factory or within the temple, in technique or in ethics, we always use the same «and», «or», «if», «therefore»... or the same poles of quadripolar logic. What changes are the axioms which we shall use to reason. For example «the heart» account with ethics or sensitivity. It will use the same «or», «and», «if», «therefore»... than a soldier, but on the basis of other axioms, other meaning of life and sense of duty, it will end up with different conclusions about the correct manner to behave. With my opinion much more interesting, but this is a matter of ethics and not of logic.
The only case where a field would have its own logic, would be if the properties of objects of this field correspond to a precise logic. For example in mathematics, we consider only Aristotelian objects. We could thus say that Aristotelian logic is «mathematical logic», although this is not very useful. The mind, ethics or emotions are more likely to call upon quadripolar logic, but not exclusively. We can thus only somewhat speak about «logic of the heart» or «spiritual logic». But if we follow this reasoning, speaking of «logic of war» tends to give to military actions a logical or metaphysical foundation they hardly deserve. This is a mind control method. And whose who have a clear cause to defend do not need mind control methods to justify their behaviour.
Ideas, texts, drawings and realization: Richard Trigaux (Unless indicated otherwise).
Legal notice and copyright Unless otherwise noted (© sign in the navigation bar) or legal exception (pastiches, examples, quotes...), all the texts, graphics, characters, names, animations, sounds, melodies, programming, cursors, symbols of this site are copyright of their author and right owner, Richard Trigaux. Thanks not to mirror this site, unless it disappears. Thanks not to copy the content of this site beyond private use, quotes, samples, building a link. Benevolent links welcome. No commercial use. If you desire to make a serious commercial use, please contact me. Any use, modification, overtaking of elements of this site or the presented worlds in a way deprecating my work, my philosophy or generaly recognized moral rules, may result into law suit.