Do syllogistic arguments face the problem of infinite regression? And should this weaken the argument type's precedent?

If I accept proposition "B" on the basis of premise "C", why do I accept premise "C"? Won't I need a basis for premise "C"? And that basis would have to come by another tenet, proposition "A"... Ad infinitum. The argument would either become circular, lead to a foundational belief which cannot be proven, or just regress infinitely without ever repeating.

__________________
Jaymin Jordan-Allen
Student, United Reformed Church
Ontario, CA

Bingo! Hence we assert that all worldviews have basic, unproven & unprovable presuppositions from which their other tenets are deduced. Without these presuppositions any system of thought does face the problem of infinite regression.

__________________
Davidius
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics

And though the really inspired artist may complain that, with the majority, piano-playing is mere strumming, and painting little more than daubing, yet, the exuberant feeling of having a share in the privileges of art is so overwhelming, that the scorn of the artist is preferred to the abandonment of art training in education. To have laid a production of your own, however poor, upon the altar of art becomes more and more the characteristic of an accomplished civilization. - Abraham Kuyper

Whether or not they are unprovable depends on how strictly one defines proof. But yes, one must have some sort of grounding, whether they be presuppositions or axioms.

__________________
Caleb
Trinity Baptist Church
Spokane, WA