We have several good sources of metaphors today to help us discuss how logic works.
One thing we dare not say is that logic connects us somehow to the real world. In postmodern language games the metaphor of "real" in the sense of a mysterious connection outside of the particular language games we are using is a mistake. That is, we no longer have a language game that is accepted as using words that can accurately portray some unchanging world that grounds our various games.
Instead, we do better to think of the real in a language game where the real is the rational and the rational is the real. Here, what we mean by rational is what the language game we are playing allows us to say. We engage one another in a dialectical process, or game, when we speak and listen. We make moves. We say what we think will enable us to win points in the game. We allow others to win points too. Various games have different rules.
What we can know to be certain, that is, what we can consider true, depends on the rules of the game. In math, there is no argument allowed over 2 + 2. In cooking there is a little more leeway. (We can have a rounded two tablespoons). In guessing what someone else is thinking there is still more. (I knew what you were thinking because I put two and two together.) You can play this with various words as they work in various games. The meanings will be different because the rules are different in the various games.
But we might say, these various games work well because of the forms of life that they work in, or they are somehow attached to the world because our habits are more or less successful because of the way things really are. Those of us who learn good habits win. Those who learn bad habits lose.
In this, I suppose it would seem ridiculous to disagree. What would it mean to disagree here? It would mean to disagree with the current rules of this specific game.
So, how does Logic work? Next