The original Latin has it in three words. "cogito ergo sum". "I think - therefore - I am". Antecedent - adverb - consequent.

This is the bare minimum required for a conditional statement! Antecedent - adverb - consequent. Otherwise, it could not be a conditional statement - just maybe a name for an idea or a thing.

Ironically enough, because of a loud and angry mob in the courtroom Cicero was intimidated into silence and did not finish his closing speech. Milo was promptly convicted and exiled.

It seems "amidst the clash of arms" Cicero himself fell victim to the silence of the law :)

That is not to say that all the enlightened and erudite commentators in this thread, including yourself, are on a wild goose chase. It is a fascinating question that you pose, I am just not sure that Cicero was asking it himself.

Did Cicero make a legitimate point, or is this a case where Cicero the lawyer overcame Cicero the philosopher/statesman, and sanctioned violence? — Ciceronianus the White

There is a broader debate about modern laws, but I will stick to what, to my mind, is going on in Cicero's speech defending Milo.

This idea that

He was addressing whether ordinary law ... should have application in circumstances ... it wasn't intended to be applied ... due to extraordinary circumstances. — Ciceronianus the White

That is not quite what is going on. If you have a look at that part in the full speech you see that Cicero is making a very orthodox legal argument, namely, "this is a clear-cut case of self-defense. We all have right to defend ourselves. The law lets us kill robbers who come to us in the night. Logically, this principle should apply in this situation."

The law referred to there is from the Twelve Tables - the Roman equivalent of, mutatis mutandis, the British Magna Carta, or the US constitution.

Appealing to a fundamental principle and extending it to cover unique situations is extremely common across legal systems.

(SOURCE: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0020%3Atext%3DMil.%3Asection%3D11)

States, nations, governments and continents do not rule. The bosses are the individuals and groups that control them. — Rafaella Leon

Humans are ruled by concepts. It does not matter whether it is a network of people or one person that holds power. Concepts such as "employer" "family" "religion" are all necessary fictions to create and maintain societal cohesion. We justify the part we play in the world using these words, even though the only place they exist is in our minds.

And it does not matter what level of society. The ones at the top are also ruled by ideas, ref. "sword of Damocles".

the first step to solving a problem is to recognize it — TheMadFool

It almost comes down to a "chicken and egg" problem, haha. What came first: reason or emotion?

Personally, I would say that emotion comes first.

Let us take the example of a calculator which, by today's standards, is a very basic computer. Nonetheless, it can represent the activities of the human brain. We can put whatever we want into that calculator. We could input millions of sums. But in the end we will only choose 1 sum out of those many many possibilities.

My understanding is that our conscious thought processes work the same way. There are millions of possible thoughts. But only 1 will emerge from the brainy ether. What determines that is an emotion, which is provoked by unconscious thought, which in turn is provoked by an external stimulus.

I think this is a very interesting point.

Although, I think that drawing a clear line between our "reason" and our "emotion" is problematic.

To reference David Hume:

"Moral distinctions are not derived from reason ... Moral distinctions are derived from the moral sentiments: feelings of approval (esteem, praise) and disapproval (blame) felt by spectators who contemplate a character trait or action"

(Source: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.)

Hume also said that reason is a "slave of the passions", i.e. it merely puts into practice morals derived from elsewhere. This leaves us in a quandary if we are to claim that morals are derived from reason.