Textbooks and dictionaries often define logic as a science about the forms of thinking. Such definitions are twice in error: first, logic is not a science, and second, it is not confined to thinking.

Consider the common usage of the word. In everyday life it refers to human activity in general, and logical reasoning little differs in that respect from any other logical act. Logical behavior often is accepted with content, while too much spontaneity generally bears negative connotations. Also, one might speak about various events evaluating them as quite logical or entirely unexpected. However, such an evaluation can only apply to something that comes as a result of people's activity; we never call, say, physical events logical—they just happen according to natural laws.

This gives us a few basic characteristics of logic, the clues to deeper comprehension:

  1. Logic is an aspect of human activity.
  2. It can refer to individual behavior as well as collective action.
  3. It has to do with regularity and predictability.
  4. It has to do with the social acceptance of behavior.

The list is in no way exhaustive, but there is something to start with. At least, we can immediately conclude that logic is not mere drawing conclusions, as many philosophers try to demonstrate; moreover, drawing conclusions can sometimes be unacceptably illogical, as long as the situation does not imply it. For instance, if you are to show your love, you must show it right away, without justification; if you have to kill, you kill without theatric gestures and pathetic monologs. Reflection comes later: first, the wound, and then the pain.

We can also discard the idealistic tendency of exaggerating the ubiquity of logic, identifying it with any regularity at all. There is matter, and there is reflection; they are not the same, albeit impossible without each other. Logic is an essentially social phenomenon, and there is no need to stick it to the other levels of the whole.

Thinking is a special case of activity, and it can, in particular, be assessed from the logical side. Still, it is not necessarily the formal correctness that matters; primarily, we primarily pay attention to the proper choice of means to achieve proper ends. You can never prove a socially inacceptable thing, however hard you try. And this is right, since lack of acceptance comes from a logical fallacy. Well, some of your ideas can stay in the long run, which will only mean that your present problems come from addressing the wrong audience, which is not entirely logical, is it?

Yes, some people are utterly incompatible with the world they have to live in. They are right for themselves—but the society is not ripe enough to acknowledge their truth. This is a tragedy, and the beauty will logically perish, and this implies the death of the world that sentenced it to death.

To put it in dull narration, some behavioral patterns are acceptable to one social group, while rejected by another. Which is logical for one community is not necessarily logical in a different world. There is no absolute truth for all times. That is, any logic can only exist within a definite cultural formation, and the development of the society results in the development of logic.

Any development obviously implies some change; but it also implies something to change, that is, something which is preserved in the course of development for some time. This explains how the idea of abstract logic independent of any cultural differences could form. The commonality of logic means commonality of life. Period. If people's life is to drastically change, their logic will follow. All I say today is subject to future revisions, remaining as a part of human history, a level of development and an inner capacity.

[Logic] [Hierarchies] [Unism]