This text explores the philosophical concept of paralogism, a term originating with Aristotle to denote faulty reasoning contrary to the Logos and logic. The author proposes a modern redefinition of this term within the context of a critique of traditional and formal logic. Formal logic is criticized for depersonalizing the Logos and for its reliance on a metaphysical prejudice of pure formality that ignores concrete cognitive content. If paralogism is understood as an offense against the true Logos, then formal logic itself appears fundamentally paralogical. This perspective allows for a distinction between two types of paralogisms: unjustified, simple logical errors, and legitimate paralogisms arising from a critical tension and polemic against the inherent flaws of formal logic. Historically, a certain right to legitimate paralogism has been attributed to dialectical thinking, from Heraclitus to Hegel, which recognizes the necessity of tension and contradiction. The study suggests that reevaluating the nature of paralogism can expose the metaphysical limitations of modern logical frameworks and restore a more authentic understanding of human thought.