Abstract

There exists a relationship between logic and world-views. Why are there different worldviews, even of the same subject-matter? Why would two different persons analyse a particular subject-matter and come-up with different results of the analysis In attempting to answer the aforementioned posers, some scholars have maintained that it is only normal and expected that two different persons analysing the same subject-matter should come-up with different analysis-results of the subject-matter. This class of scholars hold this view because, as they maintain, each "tribe", as it were, is naturally endowed by nature with its unique and peculiar logic with which it grapples with its own idiosyncratic issues confronting it. Therefore, the logic with which "A" grapples with a particular subject-matter is essentially unique to "A" and different from the logic with which "B" confronts the same subject-matter. It is because of the use of these unique and subjective "logics", the reasoning goes, that the end-results of the analyses of the same subjectmatter would usually, if not necessarily, be different. The thesis of this paper, however, is that logic qua logic, cannot be tribalised, much less manufactured to suit different peoples from different tribes. Logic is the given tools with which wo/man grapples with the realities that confront and surround her/him. The tribalization and/or manufacture of "logics" is an unwholesome venture, and an unholy exercise which carries with it massive and catastrophic consequences identified within this work.