Thus, no assertion can be strictly defined as logical, which dilutes the designation "illogical" somewhat. The key is that logic is not an absolute state, but a process. "Logical" does not mean true - it means in keeping with the process of reason. As such, I think a person who made a very concerted effort could be completely logical - could apply logic to the totality of their conscious thoughts. Root assumptions need not be proved irrefutably - they need only be examined rationally and found to be worthwhile, whether by evidence in their favour or probable evidence in their favour. What is worthwhile? Well, therein lies the circularity again: in the end, there is an innate human judgement that must take place as to what reason is, the same judgement that invented logic in the first place. Is circularity invalid or a cause for slandering the fair name of all logic? I don't think so - we are only circular in our thinking to the extent that the fundamental question of being is circular: "Why does anything exist at all? Why not just nothingness?" Our existence is centered around the fact that the universe does in fact exist - that is the root assumption of everything.