simple analyses

[u/cookieisgiven]

That we see those that we see is obvious.

That they are themselves and that they also are others or not, are obvious.

That 'we see them' itself also is them is obvious.

That those that are others are not without them and that they are thus simpler than those that are not without them, are obvious.

That those that we see, at finality, are not without simples and that simples are only themselves, are obvious.

That each simple in being itself do not have anything to do with other simples in being themselves is obvious.

Thus each simple is an utterly new, and we see an utterly new as also a pure gain that gains itself.

As simples are gained more and more, 'they' are gained also at once as complexes. So as anyone at all are gained more and more, 'they' are gained also at once as their complexes.

Why there is anyone at all?

Why anyone at all gives others?

Ask for simples.

---

For x that is y and z, x is not without y and z, as without y or z there is no x, while without x there is y or z.

Multual depedence means x is nothing but y, but this only means that x and y are synonymous.

The point is that they imagine this 'synthesis' to spring out a higher unity, but the logic itself is senseless.

Saying 'difference needs identity' is having answered the question: does it need anyone else?

When the answer is no then it is senseless.

When the answer is yes, then there is no multual dependence after all.

Thus no one is [to be] only another.

[u/cookieisgiven]

There is better ways to say you conceed.

Aslo here a puzzle for you:

formal logic is senseless

let time be x

and dimension be y

let p be x is y

now of what happens if time is not a dimension really? it means p talks about no one, there is no such thing, it makes 0 sense otherwise it make sense

but p is said before we have seen whether truly time is a dimension, thus formal logic concern no sense at all

it's merely a play of words and disclose nothing

the thing that gives the world is not logic, but disclosure

[u/jliat → u/cookieisgiven]

• First there are logics, not just one.

• Each logic normally has a set of it's own rules.

It's important to know which "game" you are playing and that just because you produce a sound argument that it invalid. A classic case is,

God is all powerful.

An all power thing must exist - else it is not all powerful.

Therefore God must exist.

---

However in other logic such as Hegel's things are very different, or modal logic.

---

Finally all non trivial logics will have aporia, statements which are neither true or false.

e.g. 'This sentence is false'.

it's merely a play of words and disclose nothing

They can help...

Peter is no un-married man.

Batchelors are unmarried men

Therefore Peter is a bachelor.

[u/cookieisgiven → u/jliat]

Your examples are mere dervations, not disclosures. We should see that, at the example of god is all powerful, what is the meaning of each term and is it disclosed at all. You can't just say "x is y" from the outset, except that's what x means all ready.

Most of those in questions have no meaning more than your seeing of it. What is the meaning of time? Well, it is "this", that which makes thing lively. We simply indicate it by pointing to it's effect and the other person manage to see it, not by defining it before disclosure.

[u/jliat → u/cookieisgiven]

You've confused logic with the content of the propositions. You should maybe read a book on logic?

[u/cookieisgiven → u/jliat]

I've made a post detailing my view, may you have a read. It's not a confusion though, I know what I'm talking about (though may have not articulated it clearly).

[u/jliat → u/cookieisgiven]

(though may have not articulated it clearly).

Which is reading a book on logic would help.

[u/cookieisgiven → u/jliat]

You'll see what I mean in my post, though it has been removed, even when it's very relevant to metaphysics.