Philosophy Now Forum

In Philebus, one of Plato's mental exercises, Plato reveals the mystery of how one is many and how many is one.

Now, in my Geometry work, I show you how to draw its equation.
Can you give an example of the equation in Common Grammar?

Noun is to an arithmetic identity as verb is to a geometric identity. Every thing is defined in terms of a relative and its correlatives. Or noun and verb.
So, "Tom is a cat." The simple definitive sentence, is an Common Grammar equation whose first Principles are derived from the binary distinction between an arithmet6i identity, expressed by the noun as a container for the verbal grouping of noun and verb, "a cat."

Metaphysics starts with the ability to use the two simple concepts of limit and the material difference between limits, or again, the definition of a thing. How to encode it in each member of our Grammar Matrix, and how to keep the naming convention of each element when used in any expression of any complexity.
Any child should know how to demonstrate it in Common Grammar, Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry.

So much for the mystic bull shit the illiterate claim belongs to Plato.

As stated long ago, a name can stand for a noun, or a verb, or of their combination, Therefore, in the definitive sentence, the "is" or in math the = must be eliptic, which depends upon the intelligence of an individual to comprehend both types of identity in a single sentence.

Plato wrote another dialog to exercise the Law of Identity and its application to common grammar, devoted to helping people learn the Principles of Predication, In that dialog, it is even suggested that you use simple geometry to follow the arguments, it will give you a hint as to why you go wrong.
That dialog has always been the most puzzling to commenters of the dialog. That Dialog is called Parmenides.

It opens up the discussion with a metaphorical representation of what a definition is, which again defers to the distinction of the one and the many, or noun and verb. And as the dialog tells you. If you cannot master the dialog, the problem set forth, you can never achieve the ability to reason.

As one is required to follow the common grammar with geometry, in order to understand the terms used, one is going to have to have studied at least the First Book of the Elements of Euclid.
I have also provided a compendium of that work also on the Internet Archive.

There are some who believe that Geometry was not a prerequisite to the Academy, however such mentions and use of Geometry in the Dialogs, prove otherwise.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 11:58 pm In Philebus, one of Plato's mental exercises, Plato reveals the mystery of how one is many and how many is one.

Literally, when you put 'every thing' together, as One, then you get 'Everything'. Just like if you, literally, put 'every' and 'one' together, as One, then you get 'Everyone'.

Everything is EVERY thing, as One. Or, EVERY thing is MANY, and the MANY, ALL-together, is One.

Or, in other words, the word, 'Universe', is, literally, REFERRING TO the One, (Totality; Everything; ALL-THERE-IS), which is obviously, made up of MANY, things. Which, by the way, EVERY one of those 'many things' exist IN 'conception', ONLY. As there is NO ACTUAL 'separation barrier' ANYWHERE, besides, between the ONLY two FUNDAMENTAL things, which ACTUALLY EXIST. Namely, 'space' AND 'matter'.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 11:58 pm Now, in my Geometry work, I show you how to draw its equation.
Can you give an example of the equation in Common Grammar?

Noun is to an arithmetic identity as verb is to a geometric identity. Every thing is defined in terms of a relative and its correlatives. Or noun and verb.
So, "Tom is a cat."

But, 'tom' is NOT 'a cat', just like 'a cat' is NOT a 'tom'. The word, 'tom' is just A NAME, or, literally, just A 'LABEL', which has been PLACED, CONCEPTUALLY, ONTO 'one or more' 'cats', ONLY. Just like the word, name, and 'LABEL', "phil8659" has been CONCEPTUALLY, ONLY, PLACED ON TO just 'one human being', here, in this forum, ONLY.

AGAIN, if one, REALLY, WANTS TO SEARCH FOR, and FIND, the ACTUAL Truth of things, then one JUST HAS TO EXPRESS the ACTUAL Truth, FIRSTLY, and ONLY.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 11:58 pm The simple definitive sentence, is an Common Grammar equation whose first Principles are derived from the binary distinction between an arithmet6i identity, expressed by the noun as a container for the verbal grouping of noun and verb, "a cat."

Talk about PRESENTING ANOTHER PRIME example of ABSOLUTELY UNNECESSARILY OVER-COMPLICATING what IS ESSENTIALLY VERY SIMPLE, BASIC, and EASY.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 11:58 pm Metaphysics starts with the ability to use the two simple concepts of limit and the material difference between limits, or again, the definition of a thing.

HOW ABOUT your STARTING WITH 'your definition' of the 'metaphysics' word, here, FIRST.

SEE, if you did, then you will VERY QUICKLY REALIZE that NOT EVERY one WILL BE IN AGREEMENT, NOR IN ACCEPTANCE, WITH you, here.

SEE, TO others, 'metaphysics' does NOT START WITH what you just SAY and CLAIM 'it' DOES, here.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 11:58 pm How to encode it in each member of our Grammar Matrix, and how to keep the naming convention of each element when used in any expression of any complexity.

Have you SEEN or HEARD some people USE the EXPRESSION 'word salad', here?

I WILL, ONCE AGAIN, suggest that people just SAY what they MEAN, and, MEAN what they SAY.

AND, 'If people can NOT just explain what they just 'want to say', simply, then, REALLY, do they, ACTUALLY, understand it well enough?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 11:58 pm Any child should know how to demonstrate it in Common Grammar, Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry.

LOL 'you' have NOT YET even just TOLD 'us' what 'it' IS 'in WORDS, here. Let alone 'you' being ABLE TO 'demonstrate' 'it'.

Also, YOUR continual ATTEMPT AT 'TRYING TO' RIDICULE 'children' as though 'they' are somehow LESS THAN 'you', or adults, is ONLY MAKING 'you' look WEAKER and/or MORE INCOMPETENT, here.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 11:58 pm So much for the mystic bull shit the illiterate claim belongs to Plato.

you have NOT CLEARED ANY thing up, here, YET you 'now' want to MAKE SOME CLAIM, as though you HAVE.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 11:58 pm As stated long ago, a name can stand for a noun, or a verb, or of their combination, Therefore, in the definitive sentence, the "is" or in math the = must be eliptic, which depends upon the intelligence of an individual to comprehend both types of identity in a single sentence.

YET you, STILL, have NOT YET PROVIDED JUST ONE example, FOR ANY one to LOOK AT.

Which might be A SIGN that you can NOT even DO what you are 'TRYING TO' CLAIM, here, in what some would call 'your word salad'.

bark, bark, bark! I love chasing cars!

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 12:58 am Plato wrote another dialog to exercise the Law of Identity and its application to common grammar, devoted to helping people learn the Principles of Predication, In that dialog, it is even suggested that you use simple geometry to follow the arguments, it will give you a hint as to why you go wrong.

What is with this CONTINUED PRESUMPTION that 'others' WILL and DO 'go wrong'.

Unlike you, MOST human beings do NOT NEED to USE so-called 'simple geometry' to WORK OUT WHERE 'arguments' have so-called 'gone wrong'. One ONLY HAS TO JUST LOOK AT 'the words', in 'the argument', ONLY.

And, AGAIN, WHY do you NOT PRESENT ABSOLUTELY ANY examples, here, FOR 'us' TO LOOK AT, and DISCUSS?

'I' have ASKED 'you' TO a FEW TIMES ALREADY.

By the way, you can NOT even RECOGNIZE and SEE WHERE 'you', "your" 'self', GO WRONG in your OWN ATTEMPTS AT 'TRYING TO' make 'arguments', here.

So, WHY would ANY one WANT TO LISTEN TO your, STILL, UNSUBSTANTIATED, and UNSUPPORTED, CLAIMS, here?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 12:58 am That dialog has always been the most puzzling to commenters of the dialog. That Dialog is called Parmenides.

LOL you SPEAK and WRITE as THOUGH 'you' have SOLVED some so-called 'ALWAYS BEEN the MOST PUZZLING, to commenters', 'puzzle'.

LOL Just SAYING and CLAIMING as THOUGH you HAVE NEVER EVER MEANS that you HAVE.

LOL you do NOT even have the GRAMMATICAL ABILITY TO JUST SAY what the ACTUAL, ALLUDED TO, 'puzzle' even IS, EXACTLY?

And, 'this' ALLUDING TO 'things', which you have, SUPPOSEDLY, WORKED OUT, SOLVED, and/or DONE, while ATTEMPTING TO DENIGRATE others, FOR NOT DOING what you CLAIM TO HAVE, is, besides TEDIOUS, is SHOWING and REVEALING just HOW INAPT, and/or INEPT, you REALLY ARE BEING, here.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 12:58 am It opens up the discussion with a metaphorical representation of what a definition is, which again defers to the distinction of the one and the many, or noun and verb. And as the dialog tells you. If you cannot master the dialog, the problem set forth, you can never achieve the ability to reason.

AGAIN, you are, literally, NOT SAYING ANY thing WORTH READING, here.

you are just CLAIMING that if 'another' is NOT ABLE TO UNDERSTAND 'some thing', which you NEVER GET AROUND TO JUST SAYING and WRITING WHAT 'it' EVEN IS, then 'that other' can NEVER ACHIEVE the ABILITY TO REASON.

LOL you KEEP SHOWING and PROVING that you do NOT even HAVE the ABILITY TO JUST EXPLAIN ANY thing SIMPLY, here.

you SAY and WRITE words, IN 'A WAY', which you are HOPING WILL MAKE 'others' LOOK MORE STUPID, and/or MAKE you LOOK MORE SMARTER. However, what you are ACTUALLY DOING, here, is SHOWING your INSECURITIES and REVEALING your OWN SUPERIORITY BELIEF.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 12:58 am As one is required to follow the common grammar with geometry, in order to understand the terms used, one is going to have to have studied at least the First Book of the Elements of Euclid.

NO one is 'REQUIRED' to follow the so-called 'common grammar' WITH 'geometry', in order to understand 'the terms' used, in sentences. People are ONLY REQUIRED TO just READ the words and/or terms, TO UNDERSTAND.

Now, if you REALLY WANT TO KEEP CLAIMING that you NEED TO USE 'geometry', in order to just understand the terms used, then SHOW, and EXPLAIN TO, 'us' HOW, EXACTLY, USE 'geometry', and WHY you NEED TO, to just follow so-called 'common grammar', FOR you to just be able to understand 'the terms' used.

If you do NOT, then, ONCE MORE, you are PROVIDING MORE PROOF that you are just MAKING things UP, here.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 12:58 am I have also provided a compendium of that work also on the Internet Archive.

WHO CARES?

If you can NOT TRANSFER or TRANSPORT some CLAIMED 'words' on the 'internet archive' TO, here, in this forum, then REALLY?

PROVIDE and PRESENT PROOF, and EXAMPLES, here, in this forum.

1. SHOW EVERY one, here, in this forum, HOW you USE 'geometry' to understand 'the terms' used.

2. PROVIDE ACTUAL examples, here, in this forum, so that ALL of 'us' can LOOK AT and SEE them.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 12:58 am There are some who believe that Geometry was not a prerequisite to the Academy,

ONCE AGAIN, you are just PRESENTING NONSENSICAL WORDS, here.

LOL 'There are some who BELIEVE that 'geometry' was a PREREQUISITE to SOME 'academy'.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 12:58 am however such mentions and use of Geometry in the Dialogs, prove otherwise.

So, there were MENTIONS and USE of 'geometry', IN 'the dialogs'. Therefore, 'this' PROVES that 'geometry' WAS A prerequisite TO 'the academy'.

Which, ALL IN ALL, MEANS and SAYS NOTHING AT ALL, REALLY.

PROVIDE EXAMPLES OF the ACTUAL CLAIMED 'geometry', in the 'dialog'. And, if you do NOT, then WHY would ANY one ACCEPT or BELIEVE that 'it' IS 'there'?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 7:49 am bark, bark, bark! I love chasing cars!

If 'this' is REALLY what you LOVE to do, then okay.

But, here, you are not doing much else but 'chasing your own tail', as some might say.

Bark, bark, bark.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 8:23 am Bark, bark, bark.

OBVIOUSLY 'this one', here, has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL TO STAND UP ON, NOR, BE HIND.

it, LAUGHINGLY, can NOT even PROVIDE JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF 'geometry' being USED, in 'the way' that it CLAIMS 'geometry' is REQUIRED TO BE USED to just understand 'terms'. Which, more or less, PROVES, by itself, that 'this one' has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO back up and support its BELIEF/S and CLAIM/S, here.