—as has been shown—it has no use whatsoever and is needed for knowledge of neither universals nor particulars. Their discussion of the syllogism they have formulated thus becomes like their discussion of definitions. The two amount to the same thing. Reflect on this, for it is of immense importance.

The third argument:

If a syllogism must contain a universal proposition, while the senses do not apprehend universals, which are apprehended only by reason, and that proposition cannot be known through another syllogism because this would entail circularity or an infinite regress, then there must be universal propositions apprehended without syllogism, such as those they classify as self-evident.

We therefore say: Since it must be acknowledged that some rational knowledge of universals arises directly in the mind and presents itself as self-evident without syllogism, it must be firmly accepted that rational knowledge of universals can dispense with syllogism.

This is something they themselves, along with all humanity, acknowledge: some conceptions and judgments are self-evident and need not be acquired through definition or syllogism. Otherwise, circularity or an infinite regress would necessarily follow.

Since this is so, we say: If this is possible for one universal truth, it is possible for another, since between the self-evident truths that can be known directly and what cannot be known there is no