What (exactly) is 'Logic'? (A tricky question ...)

[under development!]

What exactly is logic (real logic)? On the one hand, it is easy to say rather clearly what 'logic' is: it is just what people—normal people, including philosophers—have been calling 'logic' for centuries: Real logic is the art of proper (rational, reasonable) thinking and arguing.

On the other hand, as often with terms which are in common use, there is also some vagueness. As was just said on the home page, we must not confuse or intermingle (real) logic—the art of proper thinking and arguing—with 'formal logic'. You can think and argue properly without applying any of the signs and rules which 'formal logic' provides. But it is not easy to say quite exactly where real logic starts and where it ends. The problem may be illustrated by examples: Does the art of convincing others (as opposed to arguing properly) belong to logic or not? Does proper quoting belong within? What about ontological and meta-ontological issues—criteria of existence, for example: Are they part of logic? 

The extension of the term "logic" seems to be very hard to determine quite precisely. But this certainly does not mean that the project of teaching and learning logic should be abandoned. Rather, we must discuss what is sufficiently significant and what is not. On the next page, I give an overview of those issues which to me, personally, seem to be clear instances of 'matters of Real Logic', and are definitely worth being dealt with in a logic course.