On Four Types of Argumentation For Classical Logic

My goal of this article is to analyze the argumentation lines for the correctness of standard logic. I also formulate a few critical and comparative remarks. I focus on four the most coherent and complete argumentations which try to justify the distinguished position of classical logic. There are the following argumentations: Willard van O. Quine’s pragmatic-methodological argumentation, Jan Woleński’s philosophical-metalogical argumentation, Stanisław Kiczuk’s ontological-semantic argumentation, argumentation based on metalogic. In my opinion, the thesis concerning the correctness of classical logic is rationally justified by these argumentations. The problem remains whether the analyzed standard logic is the only proper logic.