Concrete Logic and Avoiding an Irrational Logical Contradiction

By

Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif

©Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Concrete Logic, which starts with sense experience and materialism, shows us that

it is illegal, irrational, and illogical, to assert that a statement which constitutes a logical

contradiction, is valid, from the point of view of materialism, and, is even invalid from

the point of view of atheist materialism, as most communists believe in. Thus, a person

cannot have (A)pple in his or her left hand and not (A)pple, at the same time. You see,

either there is a material apple in your left hand or there is not. It would be an irrational

hallucination or a delusion to assert that you can have an (A)pple and not (A)pple in your

left hand at the same time. Moreover, let us assume that instead of an (A)pple, you are

dealing with a wood block Letter A, in your left hand. Once again, you must agree, that

either you have wood block A in your left hand, or you have not wood block A in your

left hand. Put another way, either you have A in your left hand, or not A in your left

hand. Thus, to abbreviate, you either have A or not A, but cannot have both A and not

A, at the same time. To put this in terms of Symbolic Logic, “ A or not A” is a

logically valid syllogism or statement, while “A and not A,” is an irrational and

logically invalid syllogism or statement. Given the foregoing, it is clear that it is illegal

sophistry or perhaps, schizophrenia, to assert a logical contradiction, in ordinary

argument or statement. This is the concrete, material, logical, and reasonable basis for

all law including Canon Law, Civil Law, Criminal Law, and Constitutional Law.

Additionally, it is a logical corollary of the foregoing that logic is, by definition, and
practice, logically valid, and cannot be considered to be “irrational” or “invalid” or

“fascist” or “manic” or “schizophrenic,” or “crazy” or “unfair” or “does not count, or

“mentally ill,” etc. The basic test for the reasonableness of a law or rule is the application

of logic and the principle of reciprocity.

The following methods of sophistry in argument and/or statement are illegal,

irrational, schizophrenic, and invalid:

1. It is illegal, illogical, and irrational, to assert “M and not M” in the same

statement or argument. Thus, you cannot assert that it is “Morning and not

Morning,” at the same time in the same place.

2. It is illegal, illogical, and irrational, to assert “ shoes are required in class,” in the

morning, and then, in another class, ten minutes later, assert that “no shoes are

required in class.” The foregoing is the Fallacy of Shifting Ground, which is an

illegal action. In other words, assuming that situation 1 is analogous to situation 2,

then you cannot assert “shoes” in once situation and “no shoes” in another situation,

where there is no reasonable difference between the two situations. The foregoing is

the basis for Equal Protection under a logical rule or law. In the same, or an

analogous situation, to avoid the Fallacy of Shifting Ground, a person, or even a

judge, must treat persons the same, logically, in the same or similar situations. Also,

then, you cannot logically or legally, have a law or rule based upon any irrational or

unreasonable classifications. Each person has in inalienable, and inherent, individual

right to his or her own autonomy or liberty, without exception.

3. It is illegal, illogical, and irrational, to assert (A)ction is illegal in the morning, and

then in the afternoon, yourself engage in the same (A)ction. The foregoing is the
 Logical Fallacy of Hypocrisy, which Jesus of Nazareth condemned so strongly in the

Gospels for the practice of mortally, sinful, sophistry. For example, it is illegal

sophistry for a judge on the bench to convict a person of the alleged crime of

jaywalking, and then, engage in the action of jaywalking, him or herself, later in the

day. Additionally, it is illegal sophistry for a judge to convict a person of smoking

marijuana in the morning, and then, engage in the action of smoking marijuana, him

or herself, later that day. In this context, the Criminal Defendant, or his or her legal

counsel has the legal right to challenge the Bona Fides of the judge and require the

judge to testify, under oath, that he or she does not engage in the conduct that the

Criminal Defendant is charged with. The same type of challenge can be made

against a psychiatrist or a priest, for example. Thus, if a psychiatrist celebrates

Christmas, and at the same time diagnoses a client with schizophrenia for celebrating

Christmas, the client has the right to challenge the Bona Fides of the psychiatrist,

under oath, to see if the psychiatrist is committing the illegal Fallacy of Hypocrisy.

4. The Logical Fallacy of an Appeal to an Authority is also illegal and invalid. You

see, only a reasonable or logical authority is valid. Irrational authorities, such as the

Nazi dictator are obviously irrational, illegal, and illogical authorities. Any

authority which commits any of the illegal Logical Fallacies is clearly guilty of the

mortal sin and crime of sophistry. Of course, any purported religious authority, such

as a Mother Superior, a Male Religious Superior, a Parish Priest, a Protestant

Minister, a Bishop, or even a Pope, who issues orders or teachings which are

illogical, irrational, or unreasonable, is clearly guilty of the mortal sin and crime of

sophistry. And, moreover, any appeal to such an irrational order or teaching

constitutes the mortal sin and crime of sophistry on the part of the person who is

committing the illegal, logical fallacy of appealing to an (unreasonable) Authority.

Additionally, it is clear that any school administrator or college or university

administrator who engages in the aforegoing examples of Sophistry, are clearly

committing a mortal sin and an illegal crime. Any purported guardian or trustee, is

also required not to commit any mortal sin or illegal crime of sophistry.