CaRNiFReeK
Well-Known Member
Yes, actually it does make sense as an example of a syllogism.
If I had said that a syllogism was an argument the conclusion of which is supported by two premises, of which one (major premise) contains the term (major term) that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the other (minor premise) contains the term (minor term) that is the subject of the conclusion; common to both premises is a term (middle term) that is excluded from the conclusion. A typical form is “All A is C; all B is A; therefore all B is C.” Face it, you would have been lost.
Like your problem with Krs 1, I think that you have a hard time with analogy. It is probably because your mind isn't guilty of critical thinking, and it is not capable of preventing original thought from passing right on through.
If I had said that a syllogism was an argument the conclusion of which is supported by two premises, of which one (major premise) contains the term (major term) that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the other (minor premise) contains the term (minor term) that is the subject of the conclusion; common to both premises is a term (middle term) that is excluded from the conclusion. A typical form is “All A is C; all B is A; therefore all B is C.” Face it, you would have been lost.
Like your problem with Krs 1, I think that you have a hard time with analogy. It is probably because your mind isn't guilty of critical thinking, and it is not capable of preventing original thought from passing right on through.