by Miguel S. Zanella
Section #1: Etymology – Philosophical, Scientific, and Lexicographical Perspectives
The term “syllogism” comes from the Greek syllogismos, meaning “joint inference.” Aristotle was its primary systematizer, framing it as a form of deductive reasoning: from two premises arises a conclusion. Since then, Aristotelian logic has informed the construction of normative, epistemological, and legal systems in the West.
In modern philosophy, Kant and Hegel reinterpreted the syllogism: Kant as the structure of a priori judgments, Hegel as the dialectical engine of becoming. Hans Kelsen, from legal theory, adopted the syllogism to support his normative pyramid: a structure where each norm is derived from a superior one.1
From science, Antonio Damasio shows that rational decision-making is mediated by emotions (somatic markers),2 and Stanislas Dehaene identifies neural networks involved in inference, particularly in the prefrontal cortex.3 However, these studies also reveal that formal deduction is only part of thought: the right hemisphere, the limbic system, and the reptilian brain govern essential non-deductive processes.
Section #2: Historical Context – From Syllogistic Logic to Its Legal-Political and Neuroepistemological Applications
The syllogism emerged as a political-logical tool in classical Greece, where it was essential for public judgment. In Roman law and Christianity, it became a mechanism of moral and legal justification. During the Enlightenment, it solidified as a rational model, and Kelsen institutionalized it in modern legal systems.
Today, algorithmic systems deduce decisions about human lives without contextual intervention. Yet, some frameworks allow certain flexibilities to this trend: Common Law, constitutional jurisprudence, and restorative processes combine deduction, analogy, deliberation, and context. These practices embody a path to some integral reason.
Section #3: Path to the Current Problem and Conceptual Departure from Etymology
The overuse of syllogism as the sole reasoning model has reduced the exploration of reason to formal deduction. Yet, the mind operates with broader processes: categorization, analogy, emotional inference, and intuition. These are rooted in different brain levels: the right hemisphere (imagination and synthesis), the limbic system (emotion and valuation), and the reptilian brain (immediate reaction).
Cognitive neuroscience studies suggest that logical-formal reasoning primarily activates the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and regions of the left hemisphere. This pattern aligns with structured, verbal processing but accounts for only a fraction of total brain activity. The right hemisphere engages in pattern recognition, metaphorical interpretation, and holistic synthesis—key processes for analogy and categorization.
Additionally, the hippocampus and the limbic system modulate contextual memory and emotional weight in decisions—factors rarely integrated into institutions centered on deductive logic. The reptilian brain, oriented toward survival, influences decision-making through automatic responses that interact with rational deliberation.
The brain’s functional architecture suggests that deduction occupies only a partial space in human rational capacity. Thus, insisting on deduction as the sole criterion of validity may reflect an incomplete use of our cognitive repertoire.
By privileging deduction alone, many institutions close themselves to more adaptive and integral forms of understanding. While syllogism is effective, it is insufficient to process ambiguity, contradiction, or emotional content. The architecture of human reason demands a richer integration.
Section #4: Conceptual Proposal
We propose understanding syllogism as a valuable but overused tool. Its extensive application has led to institutional saturation of formal deduction, displacing other reasoning modes. Recognizing this excess does not mean discarding logic but critically reviewing the interrelations among institutional and normative structures.
The goal is not to replace the model but to reexamine how different forms of reason can generate normative value. This calls for contemplating complex rational relationships that go beyond deductive inference, integrating categorization, interpretation, analogy, and situated deliberation.
Such an effort may pave the way toward a more integral institutional rationality—capable of producing value structures more attuned to the goals of the contemporary social contract.
- Hans Kelsen, Pure Theory of Law (Mexico City: UNAM, 2007).
- Antonio Damasio, Descartes’ Error (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1994).
- Stanislas Dehaene, Reading in the Brain (New York: Penguin, 2009).
- ChatGPT 4.5 Processing. CTO (Context, Task: Format/research, and Output) Prompting Method & Guidance.
About the Author
Miguel Sánchez Zanella is an emerging scholar of political theory with academic roots in political science and business. He earned his B.A. in Political Science from the Universidad Central de Venezuela, where he first cultivated his fascination with political theory and focus on Postmodernism & Development. Over the past decade, he pursued a career in business development and corporate finance, honing his strategic and analytical skills. He is now refocusing some of his efforts into his career on political theory, leveraging insights from his corporate experience to inform his scholarly pursuits. Forward-looking and intellectually driven, he aims to bridge practical insights with theoretical frameworks, bringing a fresh perspective to contemporary political discourse.
Connect with me: Linkedin —> https://bit.ly/4iycpXi