Place Logic and Real Logic

By

Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif

©Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif

Philologist Walter Ong, in his various books dealing with philology, such as,

“Orality and Literacy,” criticizes the “place logic” of Ramus, and argues that we must

return to reason, based upon Real Logic. We must avoid ramified nominalism, which is

place logic. Thus, it is clear that two Logic Rules must be applied when using Symbolic

Logic and Logical Positivism. First, a logical contradiction is an illegal move in logic.

You cannot have A and not A, in the same argument or logical proof. In concrete

terms, you cannot have an “ (A)pple and no(t) (A)pple” in your hand at the same time.

This is the illegal logical contradiction of A and not A. Moreover, Real Logic also

requires that you cannot have a “contradiction between statement and performance (or

action).” Thus, you cannot say, for example, “It is wrong to steal money,” and then, you

yourself, steal money. This is the illegal fallacy of hypocrisy. When Real Logic is used,

soon we begin to recognize that reason does exist, and operate, not just mere, thin, ideas

or logic.