You are using babytier logic.
But most people grasp logic intuitively as a dead end for anything useful (beside computer programming) because words like because do a lot of heavy lifting but remain contextual.
To claim you can solve philosophy with logic is pretty silly>To a frog that lives in a world were time flows backwards
Yeah, but you don’t. What if you live in a world that is actually a chaos and only appears to be a Cosmos (order)? What if you live in a world where the frog controls your time precectng, etc?
The whole of logic is based on a shared understanding of the words used btw.
(That’s why the medieval logic game obligations is so useful for teaching but only for teaching)
When you make a logic statement about a frog, you mean the normal understanding of frog. It’s no good to use the word frog then claim you actually mean froggyness.
Now you are getting into both (1) Genus–differentia stuff
And (2). Plato dialogs on stuff like what is knowledge and how can we ever know anything, true belief, etc
And returning to my second sentence most people grasp logic is a dead end intuitively but making a proof for why in a satisfactory way is a lifetime philosophy work that never seems to be settled.