Philosophy Now Forum

Now, the truth about the distinction between the perceptible and intelligible goes as far back at least as the book of Genesis.
And Plato explained it very well. If something is intelligible it cannot possibly be perceptible, and if a thing is perceptible it cannot possibly be intelligible.

So, here it is, Is Language a Universal? Evidently as every human being can learn at least one language which is an ellipsis for one member of the class language.

Now, do you know, as Plato explained, the difference between Language, a Universal, and a Language, a particular?
Is the definition of a class the class which is defined? Or again, is a noun a verb? is a point that which actually can be parted?
Which is divisible, the divider or the relative difference?

Now, I know this confused the hell out the simple minded Bertrand Russell and Whitehead, but, maybe you have the wit to figure it out.
A thing is defined as a relative constrained by correlatives. A limit, the container, as both Plato and Aristotle told you, the definition, while the material difference is the contained, i.e. the relative. Now one cannot possibly be the other.

So, Language is Universal and Intelligible, by physical and grammatical fact. While grammar is Particular and Perceptible.

Now, here is the real kicker. How can anyone possible even know what either is when they cannot even write a grammatically correct title?

As Plato told you, as the definition of a thing tells you, binary recursion is exactly the same in the intelligible and the perceptible, it cannot possibly be different from itself. So, how can the member of the class defined by Language, which nobody can see or think in, the mind is only capable of using language, a biological given by evolution, in order to formulate grammar systems commensurate with one's own intelligence?

How can any one claim that a cause is an effect ?

Explain that to me without gibberish.

So, Language is Universal and Intelligible, by physical and grammatical fact. While grammar is Particular and Perceptible.

… got‘it ?

… as Newton wrote … ere‘s „Reality“ : … work … and emotion … and religion … and therefore human‘s „live“ : … cause they „have“ ( therefore ) „time“ … or even experience .
… does this accord to Plato ?
… cause I think … that there‘s some‘kind‘a „Eden“ - Thesis : … that human language „is“ verb … but ( example ) work „is“ relative … as far as it‘s „foreign“ : … „ai'n“t emotive ?
… sorry bout my bad Language …

A thing is defined as a relative constrained by correlatives. A limit, the container, as both Plato and Aristotle told you, the definition, while the material difference is the contained, i.e. the relative. Now one cannot possibly be the other.

So, Language is Universal and Intelligible, by physical and grammatical fact. While grammar is Particular and Perceptible.

… as I now „experienced“ … and experimented … ere‘s different types of languages …
… logical ( i.e. „english“ ) … or grammatical ( i.,e. „german“ ) … or expressive ( i.e. „spanish“ ) …
… and thus we maybe have to „decide“ :
… work … or „live“ … or „argue“ ?
… „then“re been thus different types of Esperanto :
… „movin“ … or „searchin“ … or „love“ ?
… cause Empathy seem‘s to be ( some‘kind‘a ) „intellectual“ :
… „we‘move“ !
… „but“ nowadays people seem to „work“ :
… challenge „maximum“ ?
… cause it‘s „economic“ : … plastic‘s „ubiquitarious“ ?
… so ( i.e. ) Huxley found „newspeak“ :
… „every‘thing‘s‘limited“ !

… cause belief & reliance „are“ personal !

As Plato told you, as the definition of a thing tells you, binary recursion is exactly the same in the intelligible and the perceptible, it cannot possibly be different from itself. So, how can the member of the class defined by Language, which nobody can see or think in, the mind is only capable of using language, a biological given by evolution, in order to formulate grammar systems commensurate with one's own intelligence?

… as we now see … the ( explicite ! ) verb „search“s ( or i.e. „big – data – AI“ ) been – never – defined … „cause“ Human‘s „exist“ : … and therefore „have“ - Reality … and thus have – to – learn !
… so what‘s „intelligence“ : … thinkin – bout – mankind … „cause“ I am too „beein“ ?
… „or“ searchin‘ „phantasy“ ?
… surely … human‘s „associate“ : … abstrahize … and hope … and therefore „are“ Posivist : … „cooperate“ … and do role‘s … „cause“ language „need“s grammar ?
… or „is“ beein‘ ?
… vectorization … or … „wanna‘be“ ?