1) There is no such thing as self-evidence. Self-evidence is a nice way of saying circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is a negative way of saying self-evident.
2) Logical conclusions are only true if the premises are true.
3) The existence and validity of logical rules themselves are a "hidden premise" within all deductive reasoning.
4) As such, the rules of logic occupy no "privileged place" in the order of necessity. While conclusions of logic are necessary once the premises (including the hidden premise of the laws of logic themselves) are granted, the laws themselves are no more necessary than any other theoretical idea.
5) Therefore, when we assent to the existance of the laws of logic, we are not making a logical assertion. This is precisely analogous to the 'rationality' and 'irrationality' of socionics. Deductions from the laws of logic are 'rational'. The belief in the laws of logic in the first place is 'irrational'.Originally Posted by Al Ghazali, "The Rescuer From Error"
6) So, since the foundation of all justification is belief (since the laws of logic cannot, according to themselves, prove themselves), there must be some valid way to determine truth beyond the laws of logic. In other words, there is no proof, only persuasion (for a powerful and 'cognitively original' example of the difference between proof and persuasion, read Austen's novel Persuasion)
7) Evidence of the ability of logic to destroy itself is furnished by the work of Parmenides and the paradoxes of his follower Xeno.
8) Also, the problem of induction further casts doubt on the ability of logical deduction to arrive at certain truth. Simply put, if the laws of logic are so absolute, how is it that conclusions change from generation to generation?
9) As such, there are some cases in which it is proper or valid to believe without explicit justification. We have already seen once instance of this class: The belief in the laws of logic (note that it is only convention that makes us agree that the belief in the laws of logic is proper and valid---firm believers in some sects of Hinduism and New Age religion are likely to disagree with some laws of logic, such as non-disjunction).
10) How then, shall we determine truth? By weighing all things together, considering all sides and all arguments, and coming to a conclusion via the sea-like persuasion of the wise, rather than the earth-bound proof of the learned.
Bonus) Few propositions are absolutely true or absolutely false. Any value judgment, except to say that God is good, is an admixture of true and false. The earth is neither good nor bad, but both. Even phrases like "the tide bottle is orange" is not absolutely true, for it is only 'orange' insofar as my brain processes the light that bounces off of it in a way that is identified with other objects and grouped under the heading "orange". If another person's brain processes that same light as green, how can we say they are wrong? We can merely say that they are different. Most propositions are an admixture of truth and falsity, and almost all, in this world of shadow and flame, turns on which side is emphasized. All dichotomies resolve to unities, but since we cannot perceive the unities, both our personalities and our beliefs turn on which side is emphasized. To apply this to a current debate, sex before marriage is both right and wrong. It is right for people to express themselves. It is right for people not to repress themselves. It is right for people to experience pleasure. All of those things are also wrong. There is a unity into which these opposites resolve, but that is too high for us to comprehend.