I think there’s a tiny flaw in logic there though, that’s true if ONLY all men are inherently political. As it stands you have wiggle room for other beings to be political without being men.
some peanut butter are dogs (p intersects d, or, d is a subset of p)
some cats are dogs (c and d intersect, or, d is a subset of c)
The first two do not make the third.
You can have:
c is a subset of p,
d and p intersect,
The section of p that intersects with d does not contain any c
To fix this, reverse the first statement.
All peanut butter are cats (p is a subset of c)
some peanut butter are dogs (p intersects d, or, d is a subset of p)
some cats are dogs (c and d intersect, or, d is a subset of c)
Any portion of d that intersects with p (some p is d) must also be c (since all p is in c). Hence some c, but not all c, is in the portion of p that intersects with d (some c is d).
That is not the correct form of a syllogism. The second premise should be “Some C are A” leading to the conclusion “Some C are B”. With the structure you provided, it is easy to produce invalid conclusions from true premises:
All planets are round
Some fruits are round
Therefore: Some fruits are planets
Whereas a correctly structured syllogism might be:
Bearistotle isnt just wrong, he’s failed the simplest of syllogisms; the kind that people dont need context to parse.
Come on, it’s a bear. It’s already fairly impressive that it manages to speak that well.
I think there’s a tiny flaw in logic there though, that’s true if ONLY all men are inherently political. As it stands you have wiggle room for other beings to be political without being men.
Syllogisms ignore whether each premise is factually true. It focuses on whether it is internally coherent.
If I said:
It would be a valid syllogism (structurally valid). This would mean the premises must be evaluated.
You can test yourself on syllogisms here.
You’ll inherently understand what I’m saying after a few rounds.
Your example is incorrect.
The first two do not make the third.
You can have:
To fix this, reverse the first statement.
Any portion of d that intersects with p (some p is d) must also be c (since all p is in c). Hence some c, but not all c, is in the portion of p that intersects with d (some c is d).
Oops. I fucked up lol. I changed it with your edit :p
Mental note: don’t do syllogisms at 1am.
That is not the correct form of a syllogism. The second premise should be “Some C are A” leading to the conclusion “Some C are B”. With the structure you provided, it is easy to produce invalid conclusions from true premises:
Whereas a correctly structured syllogism might be:
I’m not saying the syllogism is correct, I’m illustrating how Bearistotle is wrong.