Logic should be logical. We can make some language systems. Some languages may be logical, and others may be not. If your own language system is not logical, then it is not logic.

I agree with you in the literal term how logic is logical. How we perceive ourselves, life, values, actions, thoughts, and goals all come from an established language.

I also agree in the matter of, "if your own language is not logical, then it is not logic." Meaning, if your language is logical it's logic. This essentially translates to everyone having their own individual language of logic. Collectively, we now face an engulfing logic that is larger but relative to our own, Absolute Truth.

What I'm getting at is the power of perception is what we use to establish a language of logic.

A value of Belief can make something perceive to be logical.

If logic is based from something illogical, what value makes this logical? — Advocate

Logic is a multiplicity of systems built from the way we find ourselves making inferences. It's logical because a community of logicians and other thinkers think it so, and their ways of saying it makes sense in turn make sense to many others.

What I'm getting at is the power of perception is what we use to establish a language of logic. — Advocate

No it isn't.

Doesn't logic tend to start with self-identity (the 1st law)?

Something like ...
x = x (ontological, anything that exists is itself and nothing else)
p ⇔ p (propositional, statements (not baby-talk) are themselves)

Anyway, attempting to abandon identity (and individuation for that matter) seems to void all our talk, thinking, making sense of things, etc, sort of like a kind of intellectual mental suicide (figuratively).
Maybe identity is auto-presupposed.

This thread is illogical.

If logic is based from something illogical, — Advocate

It would help if you'd explain what you're talking about here.

If we took the topic question and switched "Right" with logic and "Wrong" with illogical, the question would read as such;

If Right is based from something Wrong, what makes this Right?


Now to put this question into a situation, Hitler's strategy.

In Hitler's perspective, his plans of destruction were viewed as logical.
But how logical is extermination, deprivation, and segregation from the perspective of a larger system of logic?
How could Hitler's followers praise his "logical" plan?

Even if you believe a system of actual unchanging logic exists, no logical decision can make all synchronous or past or future diachronous logical decisions logical also. Eventually they will contribute to an illogicality.

Also right and wrong very often have nothing to do with logic and vice versa.

I don't get it. Why bring up ethics and Hitler? Do you want to examine how deplorable it was or how rational it was? The former is about how it makes you feel, and why. The latter can be assessed based on efficiency and cost-benefit analysis.

Also right and wrong very often have nothing to do with logic and vice versa. — Thanatos Sand

Exactly.

In Hitler's perspective, his plans of destruction were viewed as logical.
But how logical is extermination, deprivation, and segregation from the perspective of a larger system of logic?
How could Hitler's followers praise his "logical" plan? — Advocate

I think maybe you're using the term "logic" in a fairly non-philosophical way.

In philosophy, logic has to do with the formal relationship of statements--namely, it has to do with whether or not certain statements are implied by others.

So, for example, you know that if the statement "If P then Q" is true, and you know that P is true, then you know that Q is true. That's what logic is.

I think maybe you're using the term "logic" in a fairly non-philosophical way. — Terrapin Station

I'd bet my bottom dollar on it.

I think maybe you're using the term "logic" in a fairly non-philosophical way.
— Terrapin Station

I'd bet my bottom dollar on it. — Sapientia

My intentions aren't to go into ethical issues but to give an example of one's logic that is skewed.
Right and wrong don't always have share the same opportunity with logic. But if something is logical, it's considered right. If something is illogical, it's viewed to be wrong.

A definition of philosophy- a theory or attitude held by a person or organization that acts as a guiding principle for behavior.

This definition is why I used Hitler as an example. He was illogical, but yet a whole nation was behind him. Whether the audience was forced to finding a belief or facing a fear, these values factor into the logic we perceive and are told.

Look, I think that you should just forget about logic, because it has a technical meaning in philosophy, and I think that you're out of your depth - which wouldn't be a bad thing if you wanted to learn, and was willing to go off and read up on the topic, but you instead seem to want to push your own ill-conceived notion of what logic is.

It would be better if you simply stuck to "right" and "wrong", but you still need to be clearer about what you mean, as these terms are ambiguous. They can mean moral/immoral and correct/incorrect. When you say things like "Hitler was illogical" you need to clarify what you mean, and you've not been doing so thus far. Do you even know what you mean? I suspect you mean that he was wrong in some way, in some sense, about something, but that isn't very helpful.

No, if something is logical, it is (ideally) considered logic; right has nothing to do with it. It's why it could be logical to murder a human being to save one hundred human beings but it wouldnt' be right because it would be murder. As Sapientia notes, you need to grasp the common philosophical notion of logic and realize that many unethical or wrong decisions can be logical and many ethical and right decisions can be illogical, self-sacrifice among them.

How could Hitler's followers praise his "logical" plan? — Advocate

Logic is just a tool. Just as a hammer can be used to create an awesome sculpture and also to kill someone, logic can be used to serve the good and the bad.

The best way to think about logic is as a set of grammatical structures. It elucidates what we can asert if we adopt specific rules.

If logic is based from something illogical, what value makes this logical? — Advocate

So let's look at an example.

Perhaps the most illogical thing we could do would be to assume a contradiction, so let's assume a contradiction. (Possibly this is what was going on hereL ) It's a simple process to show that anything follows. A logic that leads to just any conclusion is not much of a logic.

That is, a logic that accepts contradiction is undesirable because it allows us to assert too much. It fails to provide an interesting or useful grammar.

Might leave it there and see what the reaction is.

Logic should be logical. We can make some language systems. Some languages may be logical, and others may be not. If your own language system is not logical, then it is not logic. — A Son of Rosenthal

From what I said above, one can see that even a contradiction can provide us with a system of logic. But not a useful system of logic.

Logic is a multiplicity of systems built from the way we find ourselves making inferences. It's logical because a community of logicians and other thinkers think it so, and their ways of saying it makes sense in turn make sense to many others. — mcdoodle

Yep; I would add that the community of logicians and other thinkers think it so because it provides a useful, interesting topic.

From what I said above, one can see that even a contradiction can provide us with a system of logic. But not a useful system of logic. — Banno

"Underlying this characterization of logical consequence is the division of all terms of the language discussed into logical and extra-logical. This division is not quite arbitrary. If, for example, we were to include among the extra-logical signs the implication sign, or the universal quantifier, then our definition of the concept of consequence would lead to results which obviously contradict ordinary usage. On the other hand, no objective grounds are known to me which permit us to draw a sharp boundary between the two groups of terms. It seems to be possible to include among logical terms some which are usually regarded by logicians as extra-logical without running into consequences which stands in sharp contrast to ordinary usage."
-Tarski (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Logical Consequence)

And?

Sapientia
I would bet your bottom dollar too! Along with mine (Y)

Hello, Tiff. How are our kids?

Hello, Tiff. How are our kids? — Banno

Hiya Banno! It is awesome to see you on the boards and our kids are doing awesome! How are our girls doing in the garden?

They played up, so I locked them in a pen out the back.

You know that love cannot be caged, only willingly restrained for a while. Make sure you show our appreciation for such life giving love. (L)

I try, but I am a fragile being.

"I try, but I am a fragile being."
An attribute we share.
What would our lives be if we were not able to be vulnerable?

What would our lives be if we were not able to be vulnerable? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

"Able to be vulnerable." An interesting expression. Probably one of those better understood by not asking what it means.