| | |
| Paragraph 1 |
It is no true distinction between arguments which some people draw
when they say that some arguments are directed against the expression,
and others against the thought expressed: |
| Paragraph 2 |
It is, too, altogether absurd to discuss Refutation without first
discussing Proof: |
| Paragraph 3 |
But, to return to the point whence our argument digressed, are mathematical
reasonings directed against the thought, or not? |
| Paragraph 4 |
Moreover, if the expression bears many senses, while the answerer
does not understand or suppose it to have them, surely the questioner
here has directed his argument against his thought! Or how else ought
he to put his question except by suggesting a distinction-suppose
one's question to be speaking of the silent possible or not? |
| Paragraph 5 |
If, however, any one claims that one should actually draw the distinction,
and say, 'By "speaking of the silent" I mean, in one sense this and
in the other sense that', surely to claim this is in the first place
absurd (for sometimes the questioner does not see the ambiguity of
his question, and he cannot possibly draw a distinction which he does
not think to be there): |
HTML by 
created 1996/11/25 modified 2009/04/26