To assert (or object to) anything is already to commit oneself to logic.
Rejecting logic undermines the intelligibility and legitimacy of one’s own claims.
Therefore, anyone who wishes their thoughts to matter must uphold the authority of logic.
Logic consists of the rules that make meaning possible, that prevent contradiction, and that allow conclusions to follow from reasons.
My hope is to finally discover some competent, dispassionate reasoners on this subreddit. Every subreddit I have been to (including the Logic subreddit) has an antipathy to reasoning. People downright resent it.
Regarding your first premise.
Can you not assert or reject something based purely passion/feeling/emotion?
Isn’t irrationality the quality of being illogical/rejecting logic?
To qualify any kind of rejection requires logic. To make any assertion requires logic, unless one means for it not to mean.
What does that even mean?
What would someone saying "I reject that" "without logic" (whatever that means) look like?
What sense of "requires" are you using here?
Which "logic" are you talking about?
It means your, “what does that even mean,” uses logic to even mean. Let me try to make it clearer: it means by “what does that even mean,” you don’t mean, “I am not asking about meaning, I am asking about pixy sticks.” Your A = A, otherwise your “mean” also means “don’t mean, or Tonka Trucks and not-Tonka Trucks,” which would simply be nonsense.
No it doesn't. Why do you say that.
Once you allow contradictions, any statement means everything and nothing. Meaning collapses, conversation collapses, and your position refutes itself. If you want to communicate, with anyone, logic is the axiom required to do it. If not, there’s nothing to discuss, but you are, in fact, just engaged in noise making. I don’t know how else to explain it, because no point can be made without the law of identity and non-contradiction. If you reject these, then you can’t make a single point. The end.
To reject something is simply to say "I reject that".
The only thing necessary for that is you saying that.
Which logic?
Logic consists of the rules that make meaning possible, that prevent contradiction, and that allow conclusions to follow from reasons.
“Logic,”more simply, refers to the laws of logic.
Which logic. Many logics include contradiction.
What is your evidence that logic makes meaning possible?
What is your explanation for how that even works? How does logic make things mean things?
The “logics” you refer to are essentially calculus systems. They are all predicated on the laws of logic, and could neither exist or function without them.
“What is your evidence that logic makes meaning possible?”
The FACT that we are both using it to make meaning right now, and the fact that no one can make meaning without it (including every single one of those “logics” you refer to).
How do you know what you call "laws of logic" aren't predicated on those systems.
I know that your claim is "The FACT that we are both using it to make meaning right now, and the fact that no one can make meaning without it (including every single one of those “logics” you refer to)." I don't think that's true, in fact I think it's a very stupid and uneducated thing to say that indicates not knowing a lot about philosophy, logic, or linguistics. That's your conclusion. Im asking you WHY believe that?
“How do you know what you call "laws of logic" aren't predicated on those systems.”
This is like asking, “how do I know that air isn’t predicated on words?” The question manifests profound ignorance, ignorance to a level, that I cannot in good conscience engage. You need to educate yourself before you seek to speak with authority on any issue.
OK Im profoundly ignorant. Oh well, I'll do that with my high paying job and masters degree with distinction and masters in Statistics, and you can have anxiety based on terrible philosophy. Sounds good to me :)