Math is Prior to Logic

Historically speaking, it's true that Math is prior to Logic, that is, the Logic dissertations and formulations of Aristotle, the Stoics, etc.But then you confuse chronological priority with "logical priority" [or presupposionality]. To put it differently: Simple Math, or some Math, was created without the use of Logic Formulations, but it required Logical intuitions : the mind spontaneously operated logically, just as it happens in today's minds that do creative mathematical works. On the other hand, some of today's Logic {logic systems, such as the Logic of Classes} depend on formulated Math, the work of mathematicians.
, 

1.  Yet you are using logic to argue all of this thus using logic to prove math's superiority which therefore makes logic superior considering one has to resort to logic first to argue math's superiority......you end in a contradiction. 


Try expressing the above argument you provided using only math.

...contradiction... ...condtradiction... - And what is that funny word you've been using constantly? Another bluntly philosophical word? Science doesn't need in such words, and it wins. Always.

This is a true description. Very true. 

Only one thing that makes me laugh (another emotion) - why philosophical arguments (or logical ones) must be lesser or plainer, than the emotional ones? 

Besides, if one is really deep into philosophy he must be as the most trickiest and the most unpredictable snake, like the true ninja or like a shadow. It's not a philosophy if it can't go through the walls. 

Aristotle said that to do philosophy is almost to be a god. So, it's kinda theology. 

Anyway, there is no cure against math. Math does not need any logic or anything else - and this is very important. You don't need to justify it, or verify it, or falsify it, or prove it. Because it works. And this is true by default. If math doesn't work - nothing else works either. 

That's true that we still use logical languages or sorta. It's true that I cannot argue with you or anyone esle using math language. I might if I put something like 1+1=2. 

And thank God! that 1+1=2 doesn't need no proof! It works without any proofs. We don't need to think we need to do it as it says. Even a computer can do this. If it can be done by a soulless machine, it can be done by a human being. And we can creates machines to calculate enormously big numbers to save our time. 

But logic cannot do this. There are no such solutions in it comparaly to math. Like in this example:

1) Aristotle crossed Mediterranean sea (fact)
2) When Aristotle lived there were no submarines (fact)
3) Working submarines dive under water (fact)
Therefore, Aristotle never dove under water (...really?) what about swimming?

Even adding new extra sentence, like for instance

4) Aristotle swam at least once (a hypothesis)

We can imply that Aristotle never swam Mediterranean sea

Ok. Let's suppose we've made of mistake, so what? What's next? Maybe we can correct ourselves saying that o, it's okay, we can change a logical form. No we cannot. Our logic is limited by our rationality which is not good for logic. It means the next - logic itself is made by the induction. 

I can't say math requires something that would be wrong. We all need in math. And without math there would be no humanity in cosmos. It is our primary key to the universe.

Math doesn't require logoc, it requires emotions or kinda. You put a=b and b=c together and you can emotionally see that a=c may work. So you do, so you know. No logic is needed. By the way, you said logic, but in math analysis there are bunch of logical mistkaes, Russell and others notified that. Moreover, such mathematicians as Cauchy in XIX registred bunch of mistakes and offered a way to prove them logically. And what's next? - Another generations of mathematicians failed finding themselves in either the Relative Theories or others.

No till XX in math there were no logic, and it proved to be as good as well without any logic. Logic is trash.

Look, why did you stick to that argument? Think about it further, where did you get about logic at all? Maybe you've been misusing the concept of logic. (It doesn't mean everyone else can't be wrong either.)

Another way, what if everything is directed? What if as things are things really are? Let's say until today you've been lucky at logic and everything you call logic was just a makeup? You or anyone else cannot insist there is no such things. Everything might be as a coincidence. Hume told it hundreds of times in his philosophy.

Yes. I agree on that. 

The funny thing is - your righteousness doesn't help here. Because even if I need to rationalize those coincidences it does not mean in any sense that x is a cause of y. All what we've got from the rationalization is that: among the different relations, there is at least one relation that is caused.