Draft I Part XVI
Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2023 12:11 am
A syllogism is ‘if all A’s are Z’s and B is an A then B is Z’. A syllogism is a form which means an infinite number of things. It takes its form by showing relationships in which one thing results in another, however with the infinite number of relationships it shows these relationships fundamentally to be indistinct because the syllogism means so many different things. This is a contradiction considering the syllogism is both definite and indefinite at the same time.
There is another contradiction that ensues as the syllogism must infinitely regress if it is to be absolute by its perpetual continuity, yet it is this very act of infinite regress which makes it indefinite. “A is Z, B is A therefore B is Z” necessitates another syllogism behind that syllogism as “A1 is Z1, B1 is A1 therefore B1 is Z1” and so on and so forth. This is considering the syllogism must reflect across different positions in time and space if it is to continually exist. In other words there has to be a syllogism for that syllogism and a syllogism for the one prior all the way to a potential infinity. This potential infinite regress necessitates a continual progressive change in the syllogism as actual infinity cannot be observed as it is indefinite; only a perpetually changing finite state can be observed. Yet this continual change in the syllogism necessitates one governing syllogism for them all as expressed through the original variables of A, B and Z. The multiplicity of phenomenon, for the many syllogisms, are reflected under the universal syllogism thus the ‘many is one’. The unity of phenomenon, through the original syllogism, is reflected under the many syllogisms thus the ‘one is many’. This is contradictory, under the fallacy of equivocation, as ‘many’ and ‘one’ are oppositional.
From another angle, the syllogism is dependent either saying or implying “all A’s” thus necessitating a complete knowledge of a phenomenon, through the application of universals, which rules out any black swan events. To argue that a phenomenon is universal is to prohibit any potential change of A, which is necessary if A is to adapt itself to new context over time. To argue “All A” is to take A out of time yet it is this very nature of time which allows it to exist considering time is a relationship of things, where one thing results in another, and relationship is definition. However if A changes to a new context it is no longer A and a contradiction with the prior point ensues. In other terms A must be able to adapt if it is to exist, however if it adapts it is no longer A because it has changed. The nature of the syllogism is determined by the nature of the variables and the nature of variables results in contradiction.
Another point is that the syllogism contains within itself contradictions by the act of distinction. B is distinct from A by the fact it is labeled as “B” and not “A”. B cannot be A unless one makes the act of similarity the same as equality, but this results in contradiction of equivocation (under the fallacy of equivocation) considering total equality cannot contain within it the difference that similarities do. “A”, “B” and “Z” are three different distinctions considering there labeling results in a difference.
If a syllogism can only occur because of similarity it is because of the distinction of A as A, B as B and Z as Z. ‘A is Z and B is A therefore B is Z’ necessitates first and foremost three distinct entities with these distinctions necessitating some difference and some sameness. In these respects a syllogism is grounded in similarity, not a total equality. This absence of total equality results in a antithesis of the original syllogism where sometimes, because of the distinctions resulting in subtle differences found within phenomenon which are similar, “A is not Z, B is not A, therefore B does not have enough definition as to define whether or not it is Z”. Yet this antithetical syllogism is necessary for contrast with the syllogism. In other terms the syllogism must have its opposite in order to give it definition through the act of standing apart. Opposition is necessary for definition and the syllogism is a definition. The definition of the syllogism is dependent upon the indefiniteness of the anti-syllogism thus a contradiction is necessary.
However if A, B and Z are interpreted as being similar is to be applied, ‘all A’s being Z’s and B is an A’ necessitates Z as being divided against itself considering B and A cannot be completely the same as A is labeled as “A” and B is labeled as “B”. The similarities of A and B simultaneously points to their differences thus Z results in a paradoxical state of one thing existing as multiples, as Z is similar to itself through A and B, with these multiples necessitating a distinction for each and everyone of the multiples that exists; this multiplicity of distinctions for Z necessitates that if A is Z and B is Z then Z is both ‘Z’ and ‘not Z’ considering Z is similar to itself through A and B and as similar to itself contains within it differences to itself. This results in contradiction.
However to view this from another angle and argue that A, B and Z are totally equal, as expressed by the word “is”, if A is B then there is only A or only B and the statement of “A is B” is the same as saying “A is A” or “B is B”. It may be also said that if “A is B is Z”, through the syllogism, it is the same as saying “A is A is A”, “B is B is B” or “Z is Z is Z”. This self-referentiality is meaningless as there is no comparison of variables which allows for distinction.
In conclusion the groundings for the syllogism are full of contradictions. These contradictions, being infinite regress, the grounding variables meaning both one and many things, the self-differentiation of Z through the similarities of A and B, or the meaningless self-referentiality contained within the syllogism point to an inability to find any real foundations for our rational thought. As such the nature of the contradictions within our reasoning must be accepted if reasoning is to be accepted. If reasoning is not to be accepted, because of contradictions, then the contradictions must still be accepted regardless.
There is another contradiction that ensues as the syllogism must infinitely regress if it is to be absolute by its perpetual continuity, yet it is this very act of infinite regress which makes it indefinite. “A is Z, B is A therefore B is Z” necessitates another syllogism behind that syllogism as “A1 is Z1, B1 is A1 therefore B1 is Z1” and so on and so forth. This is considering the syllogism must reflect across different positions in time and space if it is to continually exist. In other words there has to be a syllogism for that syllogism and a syllogism for the one prior all the way to a potential infinity. This potential infinite regress necessitates a continual progressive change in the syllogism as actual infinity cannot be observed as it is indefinite; only a perpetually changing finite state can be observed. Yet this continual change in the syllogism necessitates one governing syllogism for them all as expressed through the original variables of A, B and Z. The multiplicity of phenomenon, for the many syllogisms, are reflected under the universal syllogism thus the ‘many is one’. The unity of phenomenon, through the original syllogism, is reflected under the many syllogisms thus the ‘one is many’. This is contradictory, under the fallacy of equivocation, as ‘many’ and ‘one’ are oppositional.
From another angle, the syllogism is dependent either saying or implying “all A’s” thus necessitating a complete knowledge of a phenomenon, through the application of universals, which rules out any black swan events. To argue that a phenomenon is universal is to prohibit any potential change of A, which is necessary if A is to adapt itself to new context over time. To argue “All A” is to take A out of time yet it is this very nature of time which allows it to exist considering time is a relationship of things, where one thing results in another, and relationship is definition. However if A changes to a new context it is no longer A and a contradiction with the prior point ensues. In other terms A must be able to adapt if it is to exist, however if it adapts it is no longer A because it has changed. The nature of the syllogism is determined by the nature of the variables and the nature of variables results in contradiction.
Another point is that the syllogism contains within itself contradictions by the act of distinction. B is distinct from A by the fact it is labeled as “B” and not “A”. B cannot be A unless one makes the act of similarity the same as equality, but this results in contradiction of equivocation (under the fallacy of equivocation) considering total equality cannot contain within it the difference that similarities do. “A”, “B” and “Z” are three different distinctions considering there labeling results in a difference.
If a syllogism can only occur because of similarity it is because of the distinction of A as A, B as B and Z as Z. ‘A is Z and B is A therefore B is Z’ necessitates first and foremost three distinct entities with these distinctions necessitating some difference and some sameness. In these respects a syllogism is grounded in similarity, not a total equality. This absence of total equality results in a antithesis of the original syllogism where sometimes, because of the distinctions resulting in subtle differences found within phenomenon which are similar, “A is not Z, B is not A, therefore B does not have enough definition as to define whether or not it is Z”. Yet this antithetical syllogism is necessary for contrast with the syllogism. In other terms the syllogism must have its opposite in order to give it definition through the act of standing apart. Opposition is necessary for definition and the syllogism is a definition. The definition of the syllogism is dependent upon the indefiniteness of the anti-syllogism thus a contradiction is necessary.
However if A, B and Z are interpreted as being similar is to be applied, ‘all A’s being Z’s and B is an A’ necessitates Z as being divided against itself considering B and A cannot be completely the same as A is labeled as “A” and B is labeled as “B”. The similarities of A and B simultaneously points to their differences thus Z results in a paradoxical state of one thing existing as multiples, as Z is similar to itself through A and B, with these multiples necessitating a distinction for each and everyone of the multiples that exists; this multiplicity of distinctions for Z necessitates that if A is Z and B is Z then Z is both ‘Z’ and ‘not Z’ considering Z is similar to itself through A and B and as similar to itself contains within it differences to itself. This results in contradiction.
However to view this from another angle and argue that A, B and Z are totally equal, as expressed by the word “is”, if A is B then there is only A or only B and the statement of “A is B” is the same as saying “A is A” or “B is B”. It may be also said that if “A is B is Z”, through the syllogism, it is the same as saying “A is A is A”, “B is B is B” or “Z is Z is Z”. This self-referentiality is meaningless as there is no comparison of variables which allows for distinction.
In conclusion the groundings for the syllogism are full of contradictions. These contradictions, being infinite regress, the grounding variables meaning both one and many things, the self-differentiation of Z through the similarities of A and B, or the meaningless self-referentiality contained within the syllogism point to an inability to find any real foundations for our rational thought. As such the nature of the contradictions within our reasoning must be accepted if reasoning is to be accepted. If reasoning is not to be accepted, because of contradictions, then the contradictions must still be accepted regardless.