Philosophy Now Forum

So, when people use common grammar, and they actually believe that by renaming names is a definition, it is easy to see, that they are illiterate. They do not see the exact same process in all four members of our Grammar Matrix. And when people say thy understand Common Grammar but not Mathematics, when they are fundamentally identical, then they do not realize they know grammar not by science, but by rote.

Plato discusses that they used Geometry to test reasoning with Common Grammar in schools of Philosophy, but it was clearly became forgotten, and today, we have Grammar Teachers, when parsing sentences, scribbling lines, when Grammar can, as the early Greeks were learning, to use Geometry.

And I almost forgot to mention. The definitive sentence is the only sentence that contains Subjects and Predicates. Predicates come in pairs, verb and noun.
So, there are more sentences that have no actual predicate or even subject. they have nouns and verbs, but they are descriptive, not definitive. Most of Common Grammar is to share mental pictures, not do any math on the words.
One can call descriptive sentences, data sets, from which certain things may be deduce which leads to comparative analysis.

The most difficult part of Common Grammar is that it uses what can be called place value notation, but in order to assert distinct sentences into the mix, or again actually different methods of making compound sentences, such as gender, tense, etc., These can actually be stated, each of them as a simple distinct sentence. A method of getting more information into a sentence by the least possible means.

So, when you understand what a definition actually is, the exact same as in arithmetic, algebra and geometry, you understand why Plato call Grammar Dialectical, speech in accordance with the two parts of a thing, relative and correlative, and you also see what both he and Socrates saw, Common Grammar, written and followed correctly, by the principles of grammar, is just a accurate as the remaining three systems of grammar. The problem is, mankind has not, and most will not, do it. Instead of multiplying words, ending up with dozens or more, all meaning the same thing, we would have a rational dictionary that some have tried to champion. Common Grammar relies heavily on Dictionaries, picture dictionaries, etc. And learning a vocabulary requires specific experiences. These are difficult to achieve, but not impossible. Common grammar is, however, the easiest to simply make up words among small groups, which are easily forgotten for their use is contextual.

Just like the other three systems of grammar, once you know what a unit is, you can actually follow Plato, using a geometric figure, when he tells you that certain types of people are divided by such and such a number. It is not something pulled out of his ass, you can duplicate his result using a simple geometric figure.

There are many ways to define a concept.
The objective way is to start with an independently perceptible phenomenon.

Example: how do we define horse?
By looking at books?
By adopting conventions?
By consulting "experts?"

No..We observe the phenomenon it represents....in this case a biological phenomenon with specific physical and behavioral traits.
A phenomenon all subjective minds can independently perceive.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Mon Apr 28, 2025 7:25 pm There are many ways to define a concept.
The objective way is to start with an independently perceptible phenomenon.

Example: how do we define horse?
By looking at books?
By adopting conventions?
By consulting "experts?"

No..We observe the phenomenon it represents....in this case a biological phenomenon with specific physical and behavioral traits.
A phenomenon all subjective minds can independently perceive.

Okay, so you are simple minded. Not my problem.

Ha!!!

Looking forward to your next post, with bold and modified fonts, to make them less simpleminded.

Carry on, retard.

So, As we can only name relatives and correlatives, we define a unit a thing by naming the group of names that stand for a things relative an correlative, which now sets the standard unit of recursion. A Cat, is verb, some relative difference, and Cat, name of a species of animal.

Wow...

Nietzsche wrote:They muddy the water to make it seem deep.

YOU, retard, are a pretentious twat...aren't ya?

Don't let me stand in the way...
This is incredible..

Pistolero wrote: ↑Mon Apr 28, 2025 7:41 pm

So, As we can only name relatives and correlatives, we define a unit a thing by naming the group of names that stand for a things relative an correlative, which now sets the standard unit of recursion. A Cat, is verb, some relative difference, and Cat, name of a species of animal.

Wow...

Nietzsche wrote:They muddy the water to make ti seem deep.

YOU, retard, are a pretentious twat...aren't ya?

Don't let me stand in the way of making a fooi of yourself.

Okay genius, show everybody how many ways you can add 1 + 1

How many ways can you multiply 1X1

Define 'one.'

Show me a one.

RETARD!!!

Pistolero wrote: ↑Mon Apr 28, 2025 7:43 pm Define 'one.'

Show me a one.

RETARD!!!

A typical dumb ass sociopathic response.

Show me a 1, retard.
Where is it?

What is it?

What a moron, you are.

Do you even know what language is?
Do you even know that math is a language?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Mon Apr 28, 2025 7:46 pm Show me a 1, retard.
Where is it?

What is it?

What a moron, you are.

Your type of behavior was noted as far back as Plato, Ask a sneaky fraud a question and all of a sudden he claims he is blind.

Your a fucking joke.

Plato and his platonic Ideals, moron?

HA!!
So, you have no clue what 1 is, do ya?
Where is it?
Show us.....
Where is this one?

What a simpleton you are....and pretentious. A bad combo.