Logical Contextualism

The position that the validity of logical inferences depends on context—that what counts as a good argument shifts with domain, purpose, and situation. In mathematics, classical logic rules. In legal reasoning, different standards apply. In everyday conversation, informal logic governs. Logical Contextualism doesn't reject logic—it recognizes that logic is always logic-in-context, and that exporting logical rules across contexts without adjustment produces error. The context isn't external to logic—it's part of what logic means.

"That argument works in a philosophy paper but fails in a marriage counseling session. Logical Contextualism says: different contexts, different logical standards. You're using the right logic for the wrong context, which is just another way of being wrong. Read the room before you syllogize."

by Dumu The Void February 24, 2026

Logical Multiperspectivism

The view that complex problems require multiple logical perspectives held in tension, because no single logic captures everything. A legal case might need formal logic for statutes, narrative logic for witness testimony, and ethical logic for consequences. Logical Multiperspectivism doesn't seek the one true logic for a problem—it moves between logical frameworks, using each for what it reveals, letting them check and complicate each other. It's logic that has learned that one lens is never enough.

"This ethical dilemma can't be solved with just utilitarian logic. Logical Multiperspectivism says: add deontological logic, care ethics logic, virtue logic. Each gives a different answer; none is final. The truth is in the tension between them, not in picking one. Hold multiple logics or hold wrong answers."

by Dumu The Void February 24, 2026

Logical Spectralism

The recognition that every logical system is haunted by what it excludes—the inferences it can't validate, the paradoxes it can't resolve, the assumptions it can't examine. Classical logic is haunted by vagueness. Fuzzy logic is haunted by the sharp boundaries it fuzzifies. Paraconsistent logic is haunted by the consistency it tolerates. Logical Spectralism studies these ghosts—not to exorcise them but to make them visible, to remember that every logic is partial, that every system has a shadow, and that logical humility means knowing what your logic cannot see.

"Your classical logic proves the argument valid. Logical Spectralism asks about its ghosts: the ambiguity in the premises, the context that shifts meaning, the assumptions you didn't state. The logic is sound; the ghosts are real. Your conclusion might be haunted by what logic couldn't handle."

by Dumu The Void February 24, 2026

Logical Spectrumism

The view that logical properties exist on spectra rather than in binaries. Truth values can be matters of degree (fuzzy logic). Validity can be partial. Consistency can be approximate. Logical Spectrumism replaces the sharp binaries of classical logic with continuous gradients, recognizing that most real reasoning happens in grey zones where true/false, valid/invalid, consistent/inconsistent are endpoints on spectra, not discrete categories. It's logic for a world that doesn't do boxes.

"You keep asking if the argument is valid or invalid. Logical Spectrumism says: it's 73% valid under these interpretations, 45% under those, with some premises more certain than others. The binary question is the wrong tool. Give me a slider, not a switch, and we can actually evaluate."

by Dumu The Void February 24, 2026

The 2 Axes of the Logic Spectrum

A foundational model for understanding logical systems along two fundamental dimensions. The first axis runs from Formal Logic (concerned with pure form, syntax, validity regardless of content—math-like reasoning) to Informal Logic (concerned with real-world arguments, fallacies, natural language—how people actually reason). The second axis runs from Classical Logic (bivalent, law of excluded middle, truth-functional—Aristotle to Frege) to Non-Classical Logic (deviations: many-valued, paraconsistent, intuitionistic, fuzzy). These two axes create four basic logical orientations: formal-classical (standard mathematical logic), formal-nonclassical (modal logic, fuzzy logic), informal-classical (critical thinking textbooks, fallacy studies), informal-nonclassical (practical reasoning with uncertainty, everyday fuzzy logic). The model reveals that "logic" isn't one thing—it's a family of tools for different purposes, from pure mathematics to everyday argument evaluation.

The 2 Axes of the Logic Spectrum "You say someone's argument is illogical. The 2 Axes ask: by which logic? Classical formal logic might call it invalid. Informal logic might see it as reasonable in context. Fuzzy logic might give it .73 truth. Same argument, three different verdicts. The axes help you see that 'logic' isn't a single judge—it's a panel, and they don't always agree."

by Dumu The Void February 25, 2026

The 4 Axes of the Logic Spectrum

An expanded model adding two crucial dimensions to the basic framework. Axis 1: Formal-Informal (form vs. content). Axis 2: Classical-Nonclassical (standard vs. alternatives). Axis 3: Deductive-Inductive (certain inference vs. probabilistic inference). Axis 4: Monotonic-Nonmonotonic (adding premises never invalidates conclusions vs. conclusions can be defeated by new information). These four axes create sixteen logical positions. Mathematical logic is formal, classical, deductive, monotonic. Legal reasoning is informal, classical (mostly), inductive (evidence weighs), nonmonotonic (new evidence changes everything). AI reasoning is often formal, nonclassical (fuzzy, probabilistic), inductive, nonmonotonic. The 4 Axes reveal that different domains require different logics—using monotonic deductive logic for legal reasoning would be disastrous.

The 4 Axes of the Logic Spectrum "You think logic is universal. The 4 Axes show otherwise: math logic is monotonic—once proven, always proven. Legal logic is nonmonotonic—new evidence overturns verdicts. Same logic label, completely different behavior. The axes help you see why your 'logical' argument fails in court: you're using the wrong logic for the domain."

by Dumu The Void February 25, 2026

The 6 Axes of the Logic Spectrum

A comprehensive model adding dimensions of truth and inference. Axis 1: Formal-Informal. Axis 2: Classical-Nonclassical. Axis 3: Deductive-Inductive. Axis 4: Monotonic-Nonmonotonic. Axis 5: Bivalent-Many-Valued (two truth values vs. many). Axis 6: Truth-Preserving-Information-Preserving (logic keeps truth vs. logic keeps information). These six axes generate sixty-four logical positions. Relevance logic is formal, nonclassical, deductive, monotonic, bivalent, but demands relevance between premises and conclusion—it preserves relevance, not just truth. Fuzzy logic is formal, nonclassical, can be deductive or inductive, monotonic typically, many-valued (degrees of truth), truth-preserving (of degrees). The 6 Axes reveal that logical systems are designed for different goals—some prioritize certainty, others nuance, others relevance.

The 6 Axes of the Logic Spectrum "You want a logic that handles uncertainty. The 6 Axes ask: uncertainty as degrees of truth (fuzzy) or as probability (inductive)? Many-valued or probabilistic? Both are nonclassical, but they're different nonclassical. The axes help you choose the right tool, not just any tool labeled 'logic for uncertainty.'"

by Dumu The Void February 25, 2026