Do you "Believe In" ...

[Left Coast]

I think you have a very small and narrow interpretation of the LNC. If all you think it's about is keeping language logical, then fine. I'm all for that. But in terms of logical debate, as in a philosophical context, paradox and contradiction are now inevitable aspects of our attempts at grasping truth. These "alternative realities" are not going to be resolved by ignoring them, and pretending there must be one 'true' answer. Post-modern relativism is probably the greatest philosophical problem humanity has faced in many millennia. And maybe, EVER. It's been coming upon us for several centuries and we've been struggling with it. The more we come in contact with each other, the more relativistic (contradicting) we are seeing "truth and reality" become.

It's not merely about keeping language logical. It's also about keeping concepts logical/coherent. A thing is itself. A thing isn't not itself. These are fundamental axioms necessary to even form a coherent thought, including ones that are postmodern.

 

[PureX]

If you don't exclude logical contradictions, then you can, quite literally, logically prove anything at all - including that you are wrong to assert that there are contradictions or that we don't need the rule.

We need to differentiate between contradiction resulting from logic, and contradictory logic. Logic does not eliminate nor exclude contradiction. In fact, it very often leads to and illuminates it. On the other hand, contradictory logic becomes impossible to follow. It is ILL-logical.

Nonsense - it's still the underlying assumption of practical science. One school of philosophy hasn't dispelled anything.

Science is not philosophy, and philosophy is not science. This is not a scientific issue.

 

[ratiocinator]

We need to differentiate between contradiction resulting from logic, and contradictory logic. Logic does not eliminate nor exclude contradiction. In fact, it very often leads to and illuminates it.

No. If you can arrive at A AND (NOT A), you can literally prove anything with logic:

A therefore A OR X
(NOT A) AND (A OR X) therefore X.

 

[PureX]

No. If you can arrive at A AND (NOT A), you can literally prove anything with logic: ...

No, you can't. And anyway, "proofs are for mathematicians". They're not a goal of philosophy.

 

[ratiocinator]

No, you can't. And anyway, "proofs of for mathematicians". They're not a goal of philosophy.

I just showed you how you can and the logic isn't specific to mathematics. Philosophy without logic is worthless.

ETA: the proof was first done by a philosopher (William of Soissons).