Our panel of 91 professional philosophers has responded to

31
 questions about 
Space
88
 questions about 
Physics
110
 questions about 
Biology
151
 questions about 
Existence
36
 questions about 
Literature
280
 questions about 
Mind
38
 questions about 
Race
282
 questions about 
Knowledge
133
 questions about 
Love
96
 questions about 
Time
67
 questions about 
Truth
216
 questions about 
Education
2
 questions about 
Action
81
 questions about 
Identity
104
 questions about 
Art
208
 questions about 
Science
77
 questions about 
Emotion
166
 questions about 
Freedom
243
 questions about 
Justice
34
 questions about 
Music
32
 questions about 
Sport
69
 questions about 
Business
58
 questions about 
Abortion
219
 questions about 
Value
125
 questions about 
Profession
570
 questions about 
Philosophy
75
 questions about 
Perception
58
 questions about 
Punishment
5
 questions about 
Euthanasia
23
 questions about 
History
153
 questions about 
Sex
87
 questions about 
Law
27
 questions about 
Gender
284
 questions about 
Language
43
 questions about 
Color
364
 questions about 
Logic
54
 questions about 
Medicine
67
 questions about 
Feminism
79
 questions about 
Death
115
 questions about 
Children
51
 questions about 
War
107
 questions about 
Animals
68
 questions about 
Happiness
24
 questions about 
Suicide
5
 questions about 
Economics
1269
 questions about 
Ethics
389
 questions about 
Religion
2
 questions about 
Culture
74
 questions about 
Beauty

Question of the Day

The problem here, I think, is that there's no one answer to the question "What are the fundamental laws of logic?" We can do things in different ways, and things which are fundamental on some accountings will be derived on others.

Let's assume that there is a definite answer to the question "What are the logical truths of classical logic?" (I'm using this as a proxy for "logical statements." If we want to expand it to include principles of inference, like modus ponens, that's okay too.) Note that the set of all such truths will be infinite, but that's okay. And to make "classical logic" well-defined, let's assume we mean truth-functional and first-order predicate logic, in which our first assumption is indeed correct. Then there are sets of rules and/or axiom schemes that provably allow the derivation of every logical truth thus understood. As just noted, there is no one way to so this, and the different ways won't contain the same axioms and/or rules. Even "the law of non-contradiction" will show up differently in different systems. For example: if by "the law of non-contradiction" you mean statements of the form "not-(P & not-P)," then such statements will be derived rather than basic in typical systems, but in all systems capable of capturing the logical truths, "not-(P & -P)" will come out true.

Logic isn't special in this regard, by the way. There are different ways to axiomatize pretty much any theory that can be axiomatized at all. Whatever fundamentality amounts to in these cases, it's not rigid and fixed.