Logic does not exist

>logic exists because we are using it effectively everytime we speak
prove it without arguing in a circle.

>prove that we are understanding each other by some means other than logic
I don't need to, not even within the scope of logic must I do this.

Divinity is meta-logic
Logic from the outside makes more sense than logic from the inside.

hahahaha whatare you even talking about
you are utilizing a system of logic to communicate to me right now, the fact that I can't describe it without circular reasoning does not change the fact that its existence is what this whole conversation depends on
when I say "prove that it doesn't exist" I'm not asking for anything really complex, I'm just asking you to point me to a situation where one can utilize NO LOGIC and still acomplish a goal

Indeed because there is nothing else to deduce from an abstraction.
Granted
that too was a tautology.

>you are utilizing a system of logic to communicate to me right now
according to you
prove it

>he fact that I can't describe it without circular reasoning does not change the fact that its existence is what this whole conversation depends on
yes it does
It means it can't be justified with logic and therefore logic itself is not logical.

>give me a logical example
no lol?

obviously you won't allow it to be proven to you because you want to feel smarter, but the proof is in the pudding, you cannot point me to a situation in which logic is not utilized to achieve an end

also, you keep inferring too much (remember me? hi!) your original post was "logic does not exist"
I've proven to you that in the very least it DOES, and now you're demanding a completely non circular definition of logic
I'm merely telling you it's here and the reasons why I know it is

there are no right answers to the wrong questions

It should be noted that such a wide ranging axiom can be divided as arbitrarily as one pleases.
Within the interactive scope of it for example lies a boundary in which induction from nothing is happening. Whether it induces a logical thing or another illogical thing would be tet another inner boundary.

Let's say logic is a system of ideas, which orders things according to its essential law, that of non-contradiction. If a logical judgment is not contradictory, this does not mean it "exists" in the only sense which an idea can, i.e. that it attains to objective validity. The formal validity of a logical judgment is the negative condition for its objectivity, while the soundness is its positive condition (in other words, validity is necessary but not sufficient for a logical judgment to be objective). If a logical judgment regarding phenomena is sound, it possesses universality, and is therefore "objective," but it possesses ideality, not reality. Reality is reserved for objects, phenomena, to which the copula ("this exists"), a merely logical judgment of the category of a representation, is applied. Logic exists ideally (as an idea and ideal) but not as an object, really.

Then there is obviously the question of whether or not any judgment, sound, only valid, or neither, can be classed as "existing" in the same sense that a sound logical judgment of the world or of ideas does. I say no, because a judgment based on invalid deduction or no deduction whatever is simply imagination, a free mental representation of perception, which is not correctly brought within the scope of logical precision. These judgments of perception rather than experience are ideas, but not ideal in that they are not properly universal, and so only have subjective relevance, not objective. And this is the distinction between a fantasy of imagination and a universal judgment of the understanding.

Attached: exams.jpg (377x764, 66K)

Basics of epistemology and ontology.

Before we can address either logic or its exustense we must first define bith logic and then existence.
Then we must define reality.
and finally mendacity.
Then we can play the game.

So, can you prove 1+1=3?

I am sure you can come up with a myriad of creative ways to prove it, but we both know it is all bullshit.

>>give me a logical example
>no lol?
isn't that funny
you insist that logic NOT existing is possible, yet YOU'VE implicitly qualified any methods of reaching and end as LOGICAL
therefore, by your own admission, logic exists, answering your own OP
why are we even having this thread?

I'm not OP.
>therefore, by your own admission logic exists
no it doesn't, it's merely possible that logic exists, only if you look at it logically, which is not the way I am looking at it.
Me not having to give you a logical example, is not a proof of logic existing or being itself logical.
>want to feel smarter
I am smarter.
>you can not give me logic without logic
uh yes??
That's not a proof of logic, only a proof of you presupposing logic and then justifying it with logic, hence the tautology.
>your original post
I'm not OP lmao
>it does
But how can it be if it is not logical?
It doesn't even matter if it does, do you know why? It can't be proven logically.
So if we take that the illogical does not exist in a world in which logic exists, then we can conclude that logic does not exist even in its own world because it is illogical.
>b-but you just used logic
no, I just stated something independent of logic which may or may not be true or logical.
You can't know within a set of logical principles that are NOT self refuting.

>the reasons why I know
If the reasons are illogical are they really reasons? They are tautologies.
>there are no right answers to wrong questions
Then stop giving the wrong answers to the right questions.
I concur.
the ontology of ontology.

>the ontology of ontology.
No, it's more like:
>the proud name of ontology, which presumes to offer synthetic a priori cognitions of things in general… must give way to the more modest title of a transcendental analytic.

>responds an hour later
>I AM SMARTER!!!
The insecurity is as palpable as the irony of you trying to illogically refute the existence of logic and criticize others for circular reasoning

I've laid out that "logic" is in the very least a tool by which I and many others derive results, if that isn't substantial evidence enough for something EXISTING you need to define existence before you delve into pedantry over the unsuitable definition of logic

this conversation was becoming stale, thank you for the salt.
truly Kantian epistemology is the Meta of Metas.
Noting ironic about it, it is the only thing which can be done.

>you need to define
no I don't.

>returns five hours later because the conversation bores him
tell me again how smart you are

Like God, Chinese Qi or Yoruba concept of Ase, logic is an ABSTRACTION, used to explain things, the difference is that logic is not an imaginary abstractions, it's based on simple objective truth, like A=A, B=B, and based on these objectives simple truth, is used to explain more complex things.

I am smarter than you, no matter how long I take to reply, I answer precisely when I mean to :^)