Quote:
Originally Posted by duffee
I’m not asserting “a horse is knowledge.” I said, “to exist is to be knowable, and that which is knowable is knowledge.”
Your argument deduces "a horse is knowledge", I know you didnt assert it. For a horse exists and is certainly knowable, and, by your claim, that which is knowable is knowledge, thus a horse is knowledge. Am I wrong to think your claim here is that I can replace the sentence "X is knowable" with "X is knowledge"?
This is a category error, you are confusing an entity and the concept of an entity; these are two different things. Note that while the switching of categories is, via the horse example, nonsensical, you have not actually attempted to even give any justification for the claim; you merely stated it as fact.