bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 8:14 pm
Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:36 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:20 pm
That is a complete sentence. Things are true in two ways: a posteriori and a priori.
Being a sycophant is not a recourse to authority. No man, or doctrine is an authority on grammar. As Language is Universal and Intelligible, while Grammar is Particular and Perceptible, the authority for grammar is language and language is a physical fact which is grasped by the intelligent, not invented by them.
I have to say that I agree with Kant. Is there another way that a thing could be true?
Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:36 pm
So, how does truth differ from itself by being before and after, and before and after what? Before lunch and after dinner?
What do you mean?
Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:36 pm
Have you ever heard that: "The relative difference between terms is not predicable of either term."?
It is the first time that I hear that. I don't understand what it means.
I see your comprehension of the written word is not sufficient for what even you desire it to be. All I can suggest is To study Plato, for several years, and to study Geometry for even longer.
The gist of it is, Language is Universal, as Plato noted, it is independent of any particular thing, living or dead. Grammar systems are constructed commensurate with a person's intelligence. Things are either perceptible or intelligible, i.e., neither provable, provable is a synonym for proof able, i.e., can be demonstrated to have a determined correspondence with a particular system of grammar, of which there are four categories.
etc. Proving has nothing to do with existence, as the parts of a thing can be proven to correspond via equality between the perceptible and the intelligible, but the parts of things cannot be said to exist. A thing exist, but a thing has two parts, shape and material in that shape, neither, in of itself, as even Aristotle recognize, can exist in of itself. This led to the statement that we cannot know the Ding un sich, or Thing in itself. Biologically one can only abstract either a thing's form or a thing's material difference. If we abstract the material of a thing, we discard its form. If we abstract the form of a thing, we disregard its material difference.
We establish, by a convention of names, an arithmetic identity, or an algebraic identity between perception and conception in regard to the two elements of a thing. This is called in common grammar, literal and metaphorical meaning, i.e., we can proof a statement as literal, or as metaphorical, and sometimes even both.
However, proofing is always in relation to a well-defined system of grammar which starts with an agreement of names, logical, such as Common Grammar, Arithmetic or Algebra, or analogical such as geometry.
Now, if you want to study our grammar matrix, I have a project on the Internet Archive called Universal Language which consists of a number of PDF portfolios. The work is very extensive.