How can be understood the logical statement that the conclusions follow the premises, if we think of following in the common use of the term?
„X follows Y” means almost always that X declines his value as an individual who can act by his own. His eyes should star at Y in order to follow him, and moreover, X does not execute the act of walking in its normal conditions. The target or the goal of an act of walking normally subsists in the mind of the walker, so that his competence of walking consists in the knowledge of recognizing the significant marks of the road. The power of his mind in keeping the goal would be proved in the act of walking developed until the target is attained. The target itself is outside of one’s mind and does not require any mental competence to be reached. But the mental subsistence of the goal proves to really exist on the level of one’s concrete movement to the target.
Instead of an apprehension of the marks of the correct road, the act of following someone supposes a unique mark represented by the person followed. The goal of the road remains solely in the mind of the follower, without to be expressed in the act of walking. Only the person followed has the privilege of applying the mental goal in the act of walking.
We are in right to make an analogy between the fact of following another person and the logical statement that a conclusion follows some premises. For the act of following persons is the strongest form of following something, and so has to be the act of inferring conclusions from premises.
But in this case, the conclusions as followers are deficient as comparing them with the premises followed. They place themselves in a mental area, while premises can involve their mental content in a concrete realm. The fact is not unknown even in the Aristotelian logic, since there is admitted that we collect premises from obvious beliefs, therefore, we may say, from the realms where the certainty is among matters more concrete than those referred to by the conclusions.
The conclusions can fulfill their deficiency in the realm of concrete things through an inclination to grow their verbal significance. One who follows someone has to preach his adhesion to others. He has to justify his inappropriateness of changing the normal way of walking and also the common way of conducting our lives.
Since we know that conclusion is in fact prior to its premises, which are collected as an afterward act of supporting it, there is not easy to keep the premises outside of the verbal trend imposed by the conclusions. So, the premises may be equally far away from the concrete realm of things and closer to the mental area.