In this paper we examine up to which point Modern logic can be qualified as non-Aristotelian. After clarifying the difference between logic as reasoning and logic as a theory of reasoning, we compare syllogistic with propositional and first-order logic. We touch the question of formal validity, variable and mathematization and we point out that Gentzen's cut-elimination theorem can be seen as the rejection of the central mechanism of syllogistic – the cut-rule having been first conceived as a ">modus Barbara by Hertz. We then examine the non-Aristotelian aspect of some non-classical logics, in particular paraconsistent logic. We argue that a paraconsistent negation can be seen as neo-Aristotelian since it corresponds to the notion of subcontrary in Boethius' square of opposition. We end by examining if the comparison promoted by Vasiliev between non-Aristotelian logic and non-Euclidian geometry makes sense.