As we said above, one of the things that logic as a field of study tries to do, is to explain when and why arguments are valid.
As also suggested above, this seems to have something to do with the argument The validity of this argument form, in turn, appears largely to be down to the presence of the word ‘and’ in the premise—in addition to the occurrence of the sentence ψ both as one of the two sentences connected by ‘and’ in the premise and as the conclusion.
The articles in this volume discuss the status of logic.
What is the status of logic vis-à-vis our philosophical aspirations and projects?
This would mean that logic has a topic-neutrality that would be immensely valuable in a discipline such as philosophy where everything is open for negotiation at any time.
It provides the discipline with a methodological framework which does not presuppose any assumptions, for instance, regarding metaphysical questions.
Moreover, it seems that the first is the case because of the second.
Presumably since Aristotle, the study of philosophical logic is the attempt to develop a formal theory that describes what these structures or patterns are and explains why some of these patterns have the interesting property of having only valid arguments as their instances., and thus independent of the content or the subject matter of the argument.
A further question about the status of logic is whether there is such a thing as correct logic to choose for our philosophical projects.
This question perhaps arises regardless of whether logic can be, in the above sense, neutral with respect to every philosophical question, for different logics might place different constraints on our argumentation or on our theories.