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.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful