I'm looking for philosophical works on the origin of logic.
There seem to be a lot of works on the application of logic in philosophy, rationalism vs empiricism etc. But I'm unable to find anything on the origin of logic or anyone who questions logic or the ratio as a system. The closest to what I think I'm trying to get at seems to be Hume. Carnap and others like him turn up when I try to look for this stuff but they seem to be content with logic as a system and just want to prove it's importance.
Sorry if I'm missing something obvious, I'm not the most knowledgeable, I guess that's why I'm asking. I'm just not completely content with accepting logic as an infallible system, it seems to work, but fucking why.
It works because the implications are already inside the meaning of the axioms.
This book starts with the definition of logic as "the science of proof with respect to qualitative laws", so you can see this definition wouldn't include mathematics. And since mathematics is said to be Logical and is surely always built on Axioms, you realise this was a pseudo/artificial definition of Logic. That definition is used so that the discipline of Logic doesn't get into the area of math, and probably because of the lack of rigour in modern Math. Anyway, if you consider Logic broad enough to include science, math and anything else, you might say Logic = Philosophy and etc ...
If you are smart enough, you could explore that the definition of Logic as only a qualitative field must be made considering the notions of Qualitative and Quantitative, and therefore, if these notions exists, are they not inside Logic? And if Quantitative is described in Logic, then Logic contains quantities. Therefore a sub-definition of Logic(or whatever name you want for the biggest field) will always be false.
Just some quick ideas
So, I've always considered my English to be pretty good but you're kind of getting to the edges of my vocabulary here, but I think I sort of understand what you're trying to get at.
My question going into this though was something along the lines of: Why is the system of logic in itself always considered to be an axiom? When Descartes questions everything and comes up with the famous line, he never questions the infallibilaty of logic as a system. Well he kind of does, but discards it with that weak proof of god (the idea of god exists in my mind, therefore he must exist, therefore there can be no devil who is deceiving me, yadda yadda yadda).
I think I might be trying to tackle a question that's to big for me to handle at this point in my studies into philosophy, but it's just too interesting to me to just leave it.
Axioms are sentences that you don't care to prove, as in you take them for granted, and proceed to realise what the implications are. A ridiculous, childish, but easy, example would be: I heard some noise around my house at night, there could be a bear around here! Well, I am not sure if the bear is really here, but I know that If it is here than I am in danger! So here the presence of the bear is the axiom, and the danger is the implication, that you get the definition of a bear. So you can see that logic works due solely to the meaning of the words you use.
In other words: Descartes, and anyone who uses language, will always assume that logic works, otherwise they wouldn't find use in language itself. I hope my reply wasn't complete shit.
You're reply wasn't shit.
I understand you, and you're getting at what's bothering me. It's the self-referential loop through which logic proves itself. I'm kind of annoyed by the fact that I can't question it, because exactly as you say, I would always be trying to go through a system based on logic and using logic to argue my points. It just bothers me that it seems to be such a monolithic truth. I just kind of want to get around it in some way I can't comprehend.
I suggest that you check out the work of Aristotle, who, while much of his work is millennia out of date, his techniques and definitions of the basic rules of logic and rationality are near unparalleled.Thomas Aquinas and Ayn Rand also did extensive work into the progression of logical thought and rational, objective thinking. (pic unrelated, but good-spirited)
I think the closest you can get to "criticism of logic" would be Nietzsche but I don't know him well enough to recommend you specific things. I just remember he criticized Aristotle's law of non-contradiction once.