Wait... what??? How then do we come to the "penumbra" question (which is very old news by the way... more than half a year ago) in your ID when the previous comment was in regards to the topic at hand??? You must be carrying on a different conversation, or at least a very outdated one.

Try to stay focused on the topic at hand.

Thanks for the advise. I always pretend to focus when I see Sophie's hips have a great deal of philosophy. In any case, the "legal penumbra theory" is the "harp" (no Miss Spelling intended) of Cavalleria Rusticana Macadamia.

Justice William O. Douglas used it in the Supreme Court decision of Griswold vs Connecticut 381 US-479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1965).

If you are going for the deduction then you are there with Aristotle. The only outness is Aristotle wants all deductions to boil down to A=B=C or A=B and B=C; therefore, A=C. We can make deductions independent of the syllogism.

Another thing to look at is that Aristotle was using ancient Greek as a metalanguage to explain the syllogism and the obtrusiveness of the subject gets almost insurmountable. It was only in the Middle Ages when the use of symbols was initiated to explain logical statements. Let me propose the historical hypothesis that this innovation facilitated the Church's dominion of the times and the creation of a genius like Aquinas.

The funny thing about Aquinas is that in today's academic world, we would call him a hack. His first professor would have called him out on plagiarism, and he would have been booted out of school. As a student of the ancient Greek language, I plan to use both Aristotle and Plato, but if I did as Aquinas did with Aristotle and Christian doctrine, I would be booted from school immediately.

Do it instead with Aristotle and Gnostic doctrine and we'll be happy to burn you at the stake as a nice heretic. Cheers!:devilish: