What is illogical? Nothing?

[The Omnissiunt One]

As stated like that, I'm not sure the argument's valid. It proves that everything obeys something that is always logical. There's an unstated premise, which is that 'Everything which obeys a law that is always logical is itself logical'.

[Anomalocaris]

Premise: For something to be itself is logical, for something to not be itself is illogical.

Argument: Everything that exists is itself. Nothing exists that is not itself.

Conclusion: Therefore everything is logical. Nothing is illogical.

That is a uselessly tautological definition of "logical". Logic as traditionally understood deals with the examination of the quality of an argument based on known promise. IN such usage the word "logical" is useful in distinguishing a valid argument vs and invalid one. In your definition, what is the worthwhile of use the word?

[Edwardo Piet]

If something is tautological then it is logical, because tautology is logical. A=A is logical. A can't not=A and that would be illogical. It is impossible for anything to have an illogical existence.

Logically contradictory is still logical. That's why it's logically contradictory and not illogically contradictory.

[Anomalocaris]

If something is tautological then it is logical, because tautology is logical. A=A is logical. A can't not=A and that would be illogical. It is impossible for anything to have an illogical existence.

Logically contradictory is still logical. That's why it's logically contradictory and not illogically contradictory.

Certain definitions are useful, certain definitions are not, even if they are true. I think your definition of logical belong in the useless category because it is useless for examining any arguments.

[Edwardo Piet]

So if a logical contradiction is "illogical" why do we call it a logical contradiction and not an illogical one?

A statement's logic can be logically inaccurate in the thing it refers to, yes of course.... I am just saying that everything that actually EXISTS in itself must necessarily be logical. Where is this definition any less useful? In fact I think it's more useful because it's more specific and it also makes more sense because we speak of "logical contradictions" and not "illogical contradictions" (An illogical contradiction couldn't logically contradict anything because it couldn't logically do (or be) anything because it would be illogical and not logical).

[Anomalocaris]

So if a logical contradiction is "illogical" why do we call it a logical contradiction and not an illogical one?

A statement's logic can be logically inaccurate in the thing it refers to, yes of course.... I am just saying that everything that actually EXISTS in itself must necessarily be logical. Where is this definition any less useful? In fact I think it's more useful because it's more specific and it also makes more sense because we speak of "logical contradictions" and not "illogical contradictions".

Logic pertains to an argument, but an argument concluding in the existence of something that actually does exist is not necessary logical. For example: "Sky is purple, therefore the sun exists" is not logical. Yes, the sun exists. But the sun exists without or without logic. you must present a logical argument for the sun's existence for the sun's existence to actually be logical.

[Edwardo Piet]

Everything that exists is logical because everything that exists is, logically, itself. The Law of Identity is logical, everything that exists obeys that law, everything that exists is logical.

The statement "Sky is purple, therefore the sun exists" is logical in the sense it logically is that statement and not not that statement, it itself - the statement - obeys the law of identity. What it refers to is not logically valid but what it IS is logical because everything that actually IS is logical because there is no such thing as an illogical thing because such a thing would disobey the Law of Identity which is impossible.