>>13256911

Now justify the stipulation of P2. :3 (I am the real catface poster). I agree with the conclusion, yet P2 is a solution that requires explanation further (and the more involved it gets, the more concrete and comprehensive the solution becomes).

I was thinking about this the other day, that every syllogism is derived from the first syllogism as well (which says something about Metaphysics). In his Prior Analytics, Aristotle goes over the only logically consistent three combinations of relations of things.

The first

AB

BC

AC

the second

AB

AC

BC

And the third

AC

BC

AB

You get the second by reversing the place of the last two relations in the first, and you get the last by moving the first after the last two in the second. But the third is just the first in reverse, so how Aristotle proves the validity of many third syllogisms is simply by reducing them to the first.

All proceeds from initial logical intuition, and all is reducible to it as well. That much I see, :3