What is the Logic in That?

Syllogism alone lacks the confirming participating foundation and the operative physicality needed for logic to be rightfully explained beyond this, whether it be past or future. Definition of Syllogism is as follows: "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.

*Note* In common uses of dictionary references most, if not all, will use the synonym "argument" for the definition of proof or evidence.

But this disturbs my thinking once again, by asking "If we have proof or evidence then why the need for argument?" If anything I would have concurred the two (argument and evidence) to be somewhat antonymous. Then I think, "well if we argue a point so much that now we can agree it must be proof for our trepidation, then possibly so." But then this is quite observably a cycle of questioning solution again and again and again, yet until some acceptance is derived by whomever is doing the accepting. This makes me wonder if there is a conspicuous problem with this repetition and what makes the problem or even a "solution" linked to a specific problem deemed trustworthy and acceptable. And once reaching a result, could impatience, frustration, biased thinking lead one to obtain answers relied upon such accounts that may contain fallacies stemmed from imprudent emotions or pre-cognitive thinking creating erroneous outcomes? Or is it even sometimes necessary in some cases? . What I am trying to lay out is the case for implementing "regulated" education, had not someone(s) at sometime have to agree that this is what we are to place within society's educational norm thus those learning are to claim these studies as "acceptable" or "trustworthy?" We (those taught by the mass mainstream education system) didn't observably make these discoveries each ourselves for the information we study to be ingrained and marketed in our schools. When is it that these principles and guidelines set for governing our teachings become disruptive or violate our human rights to think for ourselves rather than the involuntary saturation of information taught to us at a young age. I am not stating that all teachings are to be simply dismissed or that the education we are so commonly aware of is not of the worth it is set out to be, however, with all things being permitted in this reality there is undoubtedly the very nature of fallible properties that play their course as well which allows mistakes and error course.

A typical formula would show "All A is C, all B is A, therefore all B is C ," as portrayed most noticeably by that of great philosopher Aristotle. This small formula is better known as "deductive reasoning" or "logic." Now this is used among many scientists and professors even regardless of their "faiths." I believe, as Aristotle noted, that "But if logic is subjected to knowledge from experience, then can we say our understanding and teachings can be claimed trustworthy?" So here, he too tries to compensate such thought with an opposing one to balance his thinking, I would like to assume.

However, many great thinkers I want to believe shy away from this tool of thought, and I did say many so not all. Because to place such confidence in your studies to share with the world and even more importantly incorporate this into society and regulate this education, you have to be pretty damn brave or ignorant and I'd say the two can go hand-in-hand quite often. I am not saying that these teachings in education are non-resourceful ones but there has to be some level of self-approval to allow this extent of such "concrete" governed schooling, and seemingly placed for a multitude of people to claim "true" possibly without the thought or right of allowing one to think otherwise. Regardless, governed schooling automatically puts in one's mind that what is taught "must" be true. It is automatic thinking dismissing other possibilities, more commonly referred to as the "status quo."

My thoughts here on this blog are for people to feast their own thinking with themselves, express among each other their thoughts with not trying to place specific "conditions" for another, I suppose, but more over respect the heart and mind of another -open thought. It can be difficult and even "automatic" to humble one's self at times but with generous thinking it can be done. I believe this "automation" can be represented commonly by some of government's unlimited control and now this is set in a person's mind to comply with and possibly distort other thinking that could, in addition, be useful for their life.

For me to be comfortable in my own space and write in my blogs about anything gives me a sense of stillness and peace to be free with thought and at the same time respectively and effectively digest the disagreement of another's in a discussion with hopes that they would likewise do with mine. I understand there will always be critics or someone to always refute that of another. Though, some disagreements may eventually then be followed by some form of agreement. One thing is for certain and that is I am my own greatest critic. This is why I may commonly mention that there is a part of my "fervor" that would put my decision of potentially pursuing some form of teaching or profession in compromise due to this very persistent unsettling thought along with many others. Or possibly that is the levels we must face in taking risks and challenges even if they do negate that of another's, and possibly this may be a part of where competition comes from which does not at all have to be detrimental or digressive, I suppose. And yet then again, rivalry is never good, that is, if extended in a poor manner. Becoming off topic now, I continue to think this eventual over-zealous fascination of competition could eventually lead many to some degree of selfishness and lack of self-control too.

Continuing the subject matter, logic is by far one of the most overused, if not the most, technique for obtaining such conclusion of argument as I have used as well. I do not mean to render my words in "great" resistance to logic, if it may seem so. It may be the only way to "effectively" reach a degree of result, to that of humans best understanding for such studies or all studies I imagine. The pestering itch that I have is when logic is amplified in a severe matter of delineating that of the past. What I am trying to discern and lay out is: take a small simple example given an object, whether animate, tangible, or a thought based result. Since numbers are such a great communicative and educational way of solving such "problems" and making explanations visible, I will use the number 128 as my example. If I were to give you the number 128 as a result of my work in achieving this amount, you would suddenly wonder as to how I may have reached this. Well within basic arithmetic you can acquire multiple reasoning for this result. It may be by the sum in halves of 128; it may been the sum in quarters of 128; it may be the sum of eighths, sixteenths, and you get the idea. I could have added such numbers, or multiples of such numbers, or if we want to go the extent to say "I thought of it randomly," did I? Had this number been significant enough to my life to bring it to mind for that of using it in an attempt to exemplify an idea, thus becoming biased with my results? See the many derivatives for such results and then results that may be based from something preconceived which might not even be true.

Now you can apply this thought with many different ideas but I have been gradually applying this to the billions of years beyond our knowledge, past and future. I also am trying my utmost to define my rational without the interference of any preconceived backgrounds or beliefs because even without these I still find myself in "disbelief" for educational specifics obtained without the knowledge acquired from experience.

Why would one try to delineate the past that had not been recorded by man? Also, why would one hide such "truths" if they may claim them to be if not to be exposed as false. So then one would possibly need to keep it a secret for it to remain a "hidden truth," if you will, and on top of that another to be persecuted for the extortion of such truths because you also believe in the heart of humanity that people may know now what they deserve to know, as humans. I myself would want to share these truths with my fellow human neighbors as they deserve it for this is relative to their human nature as we want to know or "need" to know (government sure knows a great deal about that though) and is good for us regardless if those truths will impair us or not as though it would be for the best that we would then know. However, for one or some to keep such value from us, as our government does for their "job" and then claim that their job is "important" to humanity, with some degree may seem helping but then still may not be in best respects with human kind. If you have to hide a truth, more than likely it sounds like a lie or is a diversion from another truth (claiming the diversion is the truth) for us to believe or become regulated as so.

*Note* The generalization of government described should be within the common understanding of each reader that relates to what they may deem as unjust for themselves within such governments, not to carelessly and strongly label specific embodiments of legislature as not all may think the like.

“....governments, which have a regard to the common interest, are constituted in accordance with strict principles of justice, and are therefore true forms; but those which regard only the interest of the rulers are all defective and perverted forms, for they are despotic, whereas a state is a community of freemen.” ― Aristotle

I myself as many upon many others, if not everyone, would love the satisfaction of knowing exactly, at least close, what is it that happened "x" number of years in the past. I use this example more so for the sake of using logic to delineate the past but there is nothing that comes close than experiencing it for yourself, point blank. Any other way to defy this I believe is still quite absurd despite the human intelligence behind whatever logic, theory, principle, etc that may be. Even in my own understanding if I have not experienced such, I would need the "acceptance" despite my own absurdity to allow such belief to pass to another. This still leads me to further think about diversion and acceptance in certain areas, if not all. It is possibly the much acceptance placed in our's or another's understanding. Hysterically thinking, I come into certain realization that this is the kind of madness that drives and further drives the world insane or sane which ever way you perceive it I suppose.

Anyway, logic and time elapsed is just too far for humans to have such knowledge, if it is not been unreachable from the start of our excursion with origins. When years are added to the equation of time elapsed it adds much more room for error, problems, questioning, dispute, diversions of such results. So I am constantly agitated, and inspired, with the unbroken search and studies for our past. A part of me thinks to leave this kind of thinking out of History as it may interfere and distort that of History's purpose and beauty. By History, the same method I am doing now in recording my authenticated thoughts.

I never really could understand myself if I used my reasoning a result by working backwards. The mere thought of working backwards just sounds unproductive and futile. This too, is yet another connotation of the duality in reality. If 4 was unknown to us and we were discovering it for the first time, (the number 4 just being a representation of result and not that of value in this example) In

order to fully understand 4 ( you would have to understand of course where it came from or understand the happening of 2+2 or 3+1. Mind you once more, I am not explaining that I know how to do simple math. I am using tools from math to make a representation for the methods that are used to achieve results for determining occurrences from the far past (most notably with science). Just use this small example for some of your rationality to certain circumstances. You do not have to believe or accept it (as it is your free will), just consider it for a moment. Which one, and then more, can I determine is greater in explaining my result or has more significance? Mind you, these small numeric examples are in conjunction to that of logic used in delineating the past for this idea as this is a method or pattern of obtaining solutions similar to that of how certain scientific "studies" are being acquired. Once again, there is no appropriate timely acquaintance that would be most relative in such discoveries for the past to allow for an accurate dissolution.

The lack of pre-experience and post-experience knowledge that I do not possess, as a majority of all persons or all persons truly, that are within our reachable current era as well, manifests itself daily. And thus leading many to follow a well-disguised deception though hopefully many of us do not intend to achieve, true? A theory that is only a theory is never to be absolute, right? Is it that these theories among our understanding and education are but the closest to acceptance we can acquire?

Theories are but suppositions only to be thought enough into acceptance without most, if not all, experimental-relativity, relative experiences, which is, in fact, to all, we cannot ever denote absolute certainty due to our existence within time. This is yet another major symptom of our imperfect perfection in the reality we know. There will always be a counterpart to something, if not everything, in our reality. This is another reason as to why "change" can be either for the best or for the worse. In a world of ultimate paradoxes, perhaps everyone is wrong, yet everyone is right, and vice versa, in this proclamation.