[6AA4FD]

I can give it a shot. I don't want to butcher it, but I feel like attention spans on here are pretty short for philosophy so here's the short version. Many continental philosophers appear to be skeptical of the separation of form and content necessary for logic to "work" in the context of another subject of study (Deleuze), interested in presenting tensions between ideas that do not clearly adapt themselves to exclusive truth or falsity (Derrida), or interested in presenting things that do not pretend to be particularly abstract or logical (Levinas).

On a personal note, I want to say that I drifted to continental philosophy in my undergrad after studying and appreciating formal logic. I realized that mainstream analytical philosophy had a lot less to do with logic than I had imagined (no symbolization, no commonly agreed upon rules of deduction), and at a certain point the question of "why logic" presented itself. I haven't found many opportunities in my writing to use the more technical concepts of modality or nth-orders, let alone anything from category theory.

e: Replaced induction with deduction, a typo

[bodhiandpysics1]

The irony is that "why logic" has been definitely answered... all sorts of highly technical formal logic found use in computer science!

[ogogmad]

Intuitionistic and linear logics are good examples of "weird" logics that have had some relevance to computing.

Intuitionistic: Curry-Howard, Dependent Type Theory, formal methods.

Linear logic: Rust.

[6AA4FD]

I believe it! But I was talking about my philosophy research, in value theory and art history. I don't see the irony.