Assumptions
Before I give you my two and one hapenny, I'll state that I largely tend to agree with Geoff, Athenian200 and SquirrelTao... but my own thoughts:
What is logic? Aren’t there several systems of logic? Consider the massive differences between Aristotelian, Hegelian and Fregean logics. How are we to even begin a conversation about NTs’ being logical when we haven't even determined what the domain(s) of logic(s) is/are?
I disagree strongly with the notion that creativity is in some sense a suspension of logic (qua thinking, calculating function). As a musician and writer, I find that in appraising the works of Bach and Mozart, or Joyce and Shakespeare, I, as a(n admittedly far far far far outclassed) comrade know that in order to create the works of art they did, they had to have had rigorously logical mindsets, which moved syllogistically or otherwise from premises to conclusions. You can't tell me that Bach's contrapuntal style, building melodies upwards from bass lines, is not a highly logical system. Creativity has many forms. Even Jackson Pollock's work, which some might call the wild extravagance of artistic license, of creativity, displays a strong logical faculty thinking hard about cause (the paint on canvas) and effect (e.g. an autumnal 'feeling'). Truly great art is, to put it simplistically and in typing terms, the ideal synergy of feeling and thinking… people often like to think that Mozart just spun amazingly complex tunes out of thin air, when that’s not true… his strong emotional self was allowed expression through a very sophisticated set of musical rules and laws that he learned backwards and forwards from his father, Leopold, and then ‘riffed’ off of… ever heard of Gradus ad Parnassum!? [Edit: Parnassum, not Parnassus... for grammar buffs, substituted nominative for what should have been accusative]
As an ENTP, I do find that I have such a strong affinity towards proof that I am often stumped when it comes to taking moral stands. For the sake of maintaining my sanity and tenuous position in respectable society, I have to live my life a certain way, as if accepting the validity of certain legislative truths (for instance, one shouldn't smoke marijuana in public spaces, or one shouldn't curse in classrooms) when in reality I see no problem with these things. Taking a firm "logical" stand, as someone astutely pointed out, is one of the most difficult things in the world to do! (see next paragraph)
Axioms... is the law of noncontradiction universally valid? (this goes back to the first point about 'systems of logic') In other words, if A is true, then not-A must be false, and if not-A is true, then A must be false... well, as someone mentioned, quantum mechanics has turned such notions on their heads! It seems, from what little we're finding out, that certain subatomic particles can both occupy and be absent from the same space at the same time… not-A and A are both true AND false (at the same ‘now’)… so the law of contradiction breaks down… but does it still hold true on the macro scale? How do we determine WHEN/WHERE/---- it breaks down?
Think of all the assumptions our thoughts rely on… I don’t want to keep blabbing… I’ll summarize… this is my main point:
An _NT_ who really uses logic to view the world and understand her/himself is the least logical person in the world if he/she doesn’t realize the limitations of and question her/his logical systems… the inevitable end of logic as a whole is its self-questioning… and beyond all this, just because you’re an NT doesn’t make you some stereotypical lizard-like scientist bah-humbugging art and literature as wishy-washy and illogical… in fact, it may lead you more into art and literature as alternative logics… I may be misreading myself, but that’s how I got into literature and abandoned (as a professional option) physics…