You must log in or register to comment.
Socrates would have asked: “What makes you think that syllogism is correct?”
- All men are political by nature
- Some bears are political
- Therefore: some bear are men
- All A are B
- Some C are B
- Therefore: Some C are A
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:
- All peanut butter are cats.
- Some peanut butter are dogs.
- Therefore: Some cats are dogs.
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.
- All cats are peanut butter (c is a subset of p)
- 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).
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:
- All planets are round
- Some fruits are round
- Therefore: Some fruits are planets
Whereas a correctly structured syllogism might be:
- All coconuts are round
- Some fruits are coconuts
- Therefore: Some fruits are round
I’m not saying the syllogism is correct, I’m illustrating how Bearistotle is wrong.
Anyone know the author? I’d like to check more of their work out
Looks like it might be Perry Bible Fellowship. But I can’t say for sure
Yup. I first saw this on their site, way back when.
If he doesn’t understand that A=>B does not imply B=>A then he’s not Bearistotle but Bearistupid
Nah, he’s just practicing Sophursustry.
That made me laugh way harder than it should have
Art
This is one of my favorite things I’ve ever seen.
If memory serves, Aristotle was a professional wrestler and would occasionally win arguments by standing up and flexing his muscles
That’s Plato. His name means broad or wide as in wide shouldered. It was given to him as a nickname since he was a big guy and wrestled.
Even way back then philosophy majors still needed a day job.
Drag hates it when companies force male characters into their video games. Man is by nature a political animal, and drag plays games to get away from politics! /s
