So, if the syllogism is an anatomy of a proper explanation... then we have a subject, the explanadum (predicate), and the explanans (middle term). But doesn't that leave the major term unaccounted for? >Major: All animals are mortal.>Minor: All men are animals>Conclusion All men are mortal. >subject: men>explanadum: mortal>explanans: animalsAlso, I just find the terminology to be strange. I know that the explananda is supposed to inhere in the subject. But if "explanadum" is the thing to be explained... wouldn't the subject be taking that role? The point is to describe the subject, no?I guess I'm looking at the syllogism and seeing an endless sky and bottomless pit.
>>24115255booty analytics
>>24115255I went up to this girlShe said hi my name is SheenaI thought she'd be good to goWith a little funky posterior analyticsShe said I'd like a syllogismI said uh I'll make a deductionAfter a couple sips she licked her lipsAnd I knew that she was with itSo I took her to my crib And everything went well as plannedBut when she got undressed it was a big ole messSheena was a manAh PlatoI'll be seeing yaYou don't play around with that funky posterior analytic
>>24115307Haters will say it's ChatGPT
bump
>>24115255Ah, using the singular verb to agree with a neuter pleural subject, you really know your stuff. Unfortunately that convention only applies to Greek and not to Latin.
>>24117392I meant to say explanandum... or maybe rephrase the sentence as "explananda are"... idk. I wrote that shortly after waking up and don't remember what I was going for. My bad.
I’ll try to answer after work, but for now, Post An 2.11 would probably be helpful.
>>24117551Thank you, and cheers. Not my favorite passage but I guess I have to eat my veggies.
