cases. We have illustrated this with their assertion, “Only one proceeds from one,” which is among their best-known false theological assertions.

The same is also evident in the case of sound assertions. Syllogistic reasoning must include a universal affirmative proposition, for they agree that no conclusion follows from two negative premises or from two particular premises. A universal is universal only in the mind. Knowing that some of its instances exist in external reality helps establish knowledge of the universal affirmative proposition. When a person perceives particular external instances, he abstracts a universal attribute from them, especially when those instances are numerous. Knowledge that the shared attribute is present in an original case in external reality is the foundation of knowledge of the universal proposition. Thus, analogical reasoning is foundational to syllogistic reasoning: either it causes such reasoning to arise, or it must be said that syllogistic reasoning cannot exist without it. How, then, can syllogistic reasoning alone be stronger than analogical reasoning?

These thinkers illustrate universals with statements such as: “The whole is greater than the part”; “Two contradictories cannot both be true or both be false”; and “Things equal to the same thing are equal to one another.” Many external instances of every one of these universals are already known. When one wishes to establish such a universal proposition firmly in the mind, one illustrates it with a particular instance and demonstrates either that there is no relevant difference between it and the other instances, or that a common attribute is present. The intellect then judges that the ruling applies to that shared universal attribute. This is the very essence of analogical reasoning.