After Frege, Logic no longer dealt with the practical applications of logical language and concepts. Once mathematics had transformed the science of logic, the principles of modern logic were abstracted from ordinary language, devoid of content. But these statements could be taken with a grain of salt, as I am only presenting an argument for Aristotelian Logic rather than Mathematical or Modern Logic. Russell and Whitehead built upon Frege, as Einstein did Newton (perhaps on a smaller scale). The classic form of logic should be amalgamated with the more modern mathematical logic. This way a study of normative principles with practical application, which does not merely describe its subject, can more adequately explore the norms of reasoning to avoid fallacious patterns of reasoning.
Just a note: Einstein didn’t “build upon Newton”, but rather created a “from scratch” new ontology called “Relativity”. Newton’s “gravitational force” doesn’t exist in Relativity.
What gave you that impression? I don’t see that modern logic is really any different than Aristotle’s version (not counting all of the symbols added).
Example?
Russell and Whitehead built upon Frege, yes. But Einstein did not built upon Newton, although both can cosmologically be regarded as relativists. Einstein was influenced by the physicist Planck and the mathematician Hilbert. (Hilbert submitted the same general relativity theorie [GRT] on the 20th of November 1915, five days before [!] Einstein), but Einstein published it before Hilbert).