Hello,
There are a couple ways I could understand 'learned'. I think you mean learned as a techne and thereby a construct. If I've misunderstood, let me know.
Short answer: logic is a construct.
Longer answer: 'Discovered' I take as similar to when Columbus bumped into San Salvador and 'learned' I take as made, as in building the Great Wall of China. If we consider the discovered option the following comes to the fore. To discover a thing suggests that thing preexisting the discoverer.* Logic, different from San Salvador, is a concept: an idea. Therefore, if one opts for logic preexisting its discoverer, the questions is how does a concept preexist its conception? The issue quickly moves into a apparent fallacy of reification (whereby one errs in assuming an idea has ontic standing). This brings up a host of metaphysical and epistemic problems.
The alternative is to understand logic as something made. If one looks at the history of logic a clear intellectual pedigree is evident. From modern logicians, to Turing, to Frege, to Leibniz, to Aristotle's formalizations, back to Parmenides who made the critical break with Pythagorean mystical and numerological understanding. From this approach one can see the development of an idea, how it changed, who made the change(s) and the product of the same. This approach also allows one to compare/contrast (and thus understand) the development of logic with other intellectual systems that moved in other directions. It seems understanding logic as a construct is the clearer and less problematic coarse.
*Of course, one can discover a thing made as in Marco Polo coming to the Great Wall, but if we keep things in their ultimate sense, then a construct, by definition, must have been made by someone.
