|
the problems of syllogisms come at the level of premises/axoims.
once you put something into that machine, the rules for combination are such that you generate formally true propositions simply by not violating them (it is like any proof. same problem always obtains.)
for example: what is necessity? it relies on a particular type of logical system to make sense.
what status to attribute to existence? (see the post above re. kant)
what is the link between god and the other terms exactly?
none of this does or can appear in the proof.
if you are yourself christian, maybe the proof is (or at onepoint was) compelling because, at the level of prior disposition, you are inclined to accept the terms as legitimate.
if you are not, then things go otherwise.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|