I think the thing that brought clarity to this lesson, and indeed to all the prior lessons was learning that what is asserted universally is necessarily, and simply necessary – unless stated otherwise. This makes complete sense now, and my intellect, having happily accepted this teaching from the Philosopher, now automatically makes that assumption of necessity upon the hearing or reading a universal premise. At the same time however, I can sense myself now actively looking for any qualifying indication of particularities that communicate any sense or mood actuality in the syllogism.
Also, I think I now better understand what reductio ad absurdum is doing, and how there are two kinds simulating two different scenarios. The first being via contradiction, where an objection is made to a perfect or true syllogism. To which then that objection is assumed as true and tested against the original premises. The absurdities of that false objection becoming quite obvious. The second being via conversions or figures, where a false syllogism is asserted first. To which then the false syllogism, assumed as true in the reductio, is offered a perfect syllogism in a contrasting response, with the same premises to demonstrate which syllogism makes the most sense side by side. I attempted my first reductio ad absurdum mentally today concerning the issue of baptism in the Eastern Orthodox Church and found that it actually powerfully served to show the truth in the Catholic Church on this issue. I can see now the benefit of running through argumentation in order to put all these things into practice. It’s not to inflate the ego, but to seek the truth.
EAR