edicate, that four is two twos, involves
the minor that two is the half of four and consequently that twice two
is four. Q. E. D. The syllogism is irresistible.

If Prof. Harris should establish the mathematical syllogism and extend
its power through all the realms of mathematics, as so industrious a
thinker might easily do, he will have taken a step far in advance of
Plato, and justly deserve a higher rank, for Plato (see his Phaedo) was
terribly puzzled over the question how one and one make two. After
much puzzling he decided finally that one and one became two "by
_participation in duality_." This was the first great step to
introduce philosophy into mathematics. Let Prof. Harris consummate
this great work either by syllogism or by "_participation_."

Perhaps he may introduce us to a still greater "surprise" by showing
that all metaphors and poetical figures of speech are constructed on
syllogistic principles. It can be done, but we must not lift the veil
of wisdom too hastily, or rush in where Concord philosophers "fear to
tread." They have an endless future feast in the syllogisms, if they
are faithful followers of Prof. Harris. But possibly there may be
others attracted to Concord who would give the school something less
dry than metaphysics, or, some other sort of metaphysics. One of their
most esteemed orators made a diversion from the syllogism by
presenting some other idea based on Aristotle, which ought to eclipse
the syllogism, for, according to the report, he said "It is the most
_momentous question that can engage the human attention_. It involves
the _reality of God_, of personal existence, and freedom among men,
and of immortality."

Immense it must be! Dominic Sampson would surely say "_Prodigious!_"
An attentive study of the obscure phraseology of this philosopher
enables one to discover that the great and tragical question concerns
the reality of reality, or what the reality is, and whether it is real
or not, and how we can find it out. The way to find out whether that
which we think is, is or is not, is to go back to Aristotle, who is
the only man that ever understood the is-ness of the is. As the
lecturer is reported to say, "The _first sign_ of a movement in the
right direction is the serious attention now being devoted in many
quarters to the writings of Aristotle, who, in this, as in many other
things, will long remain the master of those that know." Evidently
those that don't go to Aristotle