A. An art?

We've all heard the cliche "The best things in life are accidents." Why go in confidence if we know that all things in life are certain? Any second of any day, our circumstances may be altered drastically. I dont know about you, but I love not knowing what's going to happen to me today, or if i'm going to look like an idiot. So logic is no different. With Aristotle, he could make a statement, and even if it didnt look correct on the surface; challenge us to prove him wrong. More often than not, the statement will be logical, even if it disputes what we think to be true. That is where Aristotle's logic collides with Euclid's logic. I suppose I still haven't really reflected upon the quote, though. Euclid determined his postulates over 2,000 years ago, and they are still held as logical. We still refuse to prove him wrong, assuming we can, because we have held them in place for so long. Euclid went wrong with confidence and made a statement that we cant even prove to be true, he was therefore, in a sense, wrong. He had it perfected to an art, postulates that looked so logical, we just assumed them to be the norm. Now with Aristotle, going wrong with confidence seems more like a stubborness than art. The statement doesn't seem to make much sense, well, he would simply say "Prove it." Such near-sighted tactics may seem annoying, but he is in fact right. If we are implored to prove logic for Aristotle why not do the same for Euclid? Wrong. Euclid's postulates have been in place for centuries, they have to be correct or someone would have challenged them by now. Right? Maybe not.