1/ Logic is not good for thinking about reality because sentences are bad. Sentences are 1) built from a set of characters where 2) those characters are arranged in a series.

2/ the same critique applies if you substitute “words” for “characters”

3/ sentences in their very constitution submit to a very particular structure that has no guarantee of being even approximately isomorphic to reality.

4/ the “atoms” (ie mereological simples) of sentences, whether characters or words, belong to a set. The mereological simples of reality are instead elementary particles (even these are suspect), which are far far removed from what sentences typically cover.

5/ because the atoms of sentences are unmoored from the atoms of reality, the apprehension of the former must be critiqued. Logic contains no defense against any such critique, because it axiomatizes the fidelity of the former.

6/ this is to say that logic contains no mechanisms for ascertaining how sentential atoms must be split or merged or coined anew, yet upon that diachronic process (“history”) and synchronic process of splitting and merging and coining lies the entire edifice of philosophy.

7/ [Dropping point (1) seriality because this thread is long enough]