Syllogism/Logic, anyone?

Question

Whatever is spiritual is ___________.
Whatever is___________ is immortal.
Ergo, Whatever is spiritual is immortal.

Can anyone please supply the middle term? This was part of my final exam in Logic class. The answer was revealed to me after the class. I just would like to see if someone out there can come up with more persuasive answer than the one given by the professor. Thanks y'all, sincere participants!

Answer 1

Incorruptible?

[EDIT] It occurred to me that this a syllogism, not a demonstration.

The point of a syllogism is to unite the greater and lesser terms through the middle term. The syllogism you presented is a classic first figure syllogism. All that is necessary is that the middle term be a universal. It does not need to make sense for a mere syllogism to be a valid syllogism in form.

I distinguished between "syllogism" and "demonstration" in the first sentence of the edited portion of this answer. All demonstrations are syllogisms, but not all syllogisms are demonstrations. What is necessary for a demonstration is that the terms be true, among other things. The greater must relate to the middle, and the middle to the lesser, as a whole to a part.

The point is, the middle term in something that is a syllogism and NOT a demonstration can be anything, because a syllogism that is not a demonstration is not required to be true.

Answer 2

It doesn't matter what you put for the middle term.

Why would a philosophy professor use "spirituality, immortality" for a logical syllogism. Those terms are so sloppy.

X works perfectly well, I'm missing the entire point of the demonstration.

Whatever is spiritual is a Rock, a sack of sh*t, natural, shaved genitalia, an aborted fetus, dust, mere belief. It all adds up to the same thing.

If I saw the question on the exam the way you put it, I would totally hesitate to put something as definitionally true as "a soul" in place of X. This is such a ridiculous waste of a question.

Answer 3

If the class is the logic then it truly does not matter how you fill in the blank. Any adjective will suffice.
For example if you use "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" for the blank you will have the following syllogism:

"Whatever is spiritual is Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
Whatever is Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious is immortal
Ergo, Whatever is spiritual is immortal."

That is a completely valid syllogism in a classical form[1]

Answer 4

Whatever is spiritual is immaterial.
Whatever is immaterial is immortal.
Ergo, Whatever is spiritual is immortal.

Or

Whatever is spiritual is infinite.
Whatever is infinite is immortal.
Ergo, Whatever is spiritual is immortal.

Answer 5

I agree with the answer above this one. The answer could be anything;

All S is __
All __ is I
All S is I

"Eternal" is also my guess (same as the first answer) for what your probably-drunk professor wanted for an answer.

Answer 6

Godly?

Answer 7

eternal ?