logic

Why do we only treat axioms as arbitrary while logic is true and binding? The logical inference methods themselves pave the way for you to a conclusion axiomatically. The law of non-contradiction, for example, is an axiom. We assume that there can be no contradiction. Just as we assume an axiom for the 180 degrees of the triangle.
PS A remnant from that period when the Rabbi had not yet expropriated the concept of Jewish thought?

You can treat logic as something arbitrary, but it is still forced upon us. I think it is necessary and not just forced upon us.
The division is not mine, but clearly there are questions that are classified as such by the questioners.

A. What is this general necessity of logic?
B. How do we know that logic is forced upon us?
C. And is not a challenge to rationalism also a challenge to logic?

It is not something external that forces, necessity is internal. See the third column on knowledge and choice.
How do you know that what you see is actually there? Everyone understands this. No explanation is needed for us to know this.
He who challenges logic cannot challenge anything. Even challenging logic requires logic.