[piekvorst]

Logic is identification of that which exists. Thus, a proposition either does correspond to reality or doesn’t at all. There is no partial semi-truths: the moment a concept or proposition ceases to describe reality, it becomes false.

Contexts don’t change much. They are merely implicit knowledge, subject to the same binary standard. They don’t change the truth, only applicability.

Mentioning Gödel here is not just cliche, it’s irrelevant. Gödel is about artificial formal deductive systems. They are not a claim to exclusive philosophy.

[meroes]

“The law of non contradiction exists”. Even Aristotle couldn’t “prove it” exists yet logic uses it all the time. I hardly think logic is about what exists but rather a tool, born out of interlocution.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-noncontradictio...

[piekvorst]

Aristotle indeed couldn’t prove it, that is, to derive it as a conclusion step by step from the evidence of the senses. His reasons for this are sound: 1) an attempt to do so has to rely on PNC already, and 2) we can’t assume infinite regress.

Asking a proof of PNC would imply proving non-contradiction by some means that assumes that contradictions do exist.

PNC doesn’t need a proof; it needs validation: a process of establishing an idea’s relationship to reality, whether through deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, or sense perception.

> logic is [not] about what exists but rather a tool

If logic describes something that is not real, then our ideas and even institutions are detached from reality, and so some people claim a right to secede from “established truths” and place anyone who disagrees outside the circle of rational dialogue. That would be a harmless academic issue if the last two centuries weren’t a living record of that detachment playing out in politics, ideology, and culture.