‘Logical’ is a word that I would almost never use. Why? There are two reasons.
1. I do not really know how to use the term. Michael often seems to think that he does know the meaning of the word logical; which is essentially a synonym for the term ‘categorial’ iff such categorial properties can be formalised viz. logic.
So, what is a categorial property? The categorial property links to Michael’s interest in Systematicity. Systematicity is a thesis concerning the ordered organisation of phenomenological and intellectual matter. In short, our organisational scheme of the world. This notion goes back to Aristotle’s metaphysics, who imposed a notion of fundamental categories that construe everything and anything in the world.
Such a systematic ordering of reality, following Kant’s categories and going up to Frege; suggest the formalised scheme in which particularised (and perceived) reality may be known and knowable. Categorials include things like
We may call such categorial features ‘logical’ features. To think logically is to think categorially (although they are not exact synonyms. A further caveat is to say that categorial properties do not exhaust the concept of the logical, by no means at all do they do as such! I think, however, that a good conception of the logical would be to account for those things that are part of our conceptual understanding of the world.
2. People in common usage use the term ‘logical’ in a similar way that they may speak of ‘objectification’; namely, without defining it. To define a word means to suggest of the conditions of its legitimate usage. Logical is often a synonym of modus ponens. But it is also such a muddled and confused common term, that people seem to associate causal reasoning with propositional logic; or cannot comprehend worldhood. Such fuzzy use of terminology is unhelpful to people’s conceptual schemes. Their stupidity limits their own conditions of apprehension.