However, even though assumptions have to be made when using logic, it's also part of a logical reasoning to select the best supported (by evidence) assumptions. See thesises and theories in science.
NOW you are talking about logic.
<< Well all know things that are true, but that we cannot logically express. It is wrong to defend this knowledge as logical, even though it makes sense to us and very easily could be true. >>
E.g.?
All men are created equal (as in US Declaration of Indepenence). This is a statement that I know to be true, I believe it to be self-evident, but I am unable to construct a strictly logical analysis that results in this conclusion. Someone else might be able to, but until then I will call it obvious, but I will not say it's logical. BTW, not being logical isn't the same as being illogical.
So you sometimes prefer subjectivity over objectivity? Right.
Never, but my logical ability has its limits. At these times I do subjectivly accept truth.
Not entirely true. Often a philosophical discussion is based on a number of irrational assumptions. See for example theological debates.
I said standard, not universal. Philosophers try to be logical.
In Theological debates, I always enter with certain premises. If these premises hold true, then my logic stands. If the premise is wrong, then my logic is meaningless (which doesn't make me wrong, just that my logic isn't valid).
John