But as for logic having brought them to a truth by which they find guidance, that is not something logic accomplishes. In short, whatever sharpening of the mind, abandonment of falsehood, or expression of truth some people achieve through it is due only to their having previously been in a worse condition, not to any perfection in the discipline of logic.

It is well known that when a polytheist becomes a Zoroastrian, or a Zoroastrian embraces Judaism, his condition improves relative to what it was before. Yet this cannot properly be made a foundation for those who follow the manifest truth. Nor is this benefit peculiar to logic. Rather, it applies to anyone who studies subjects involving subtle distinctions and a measure of comprehensiveness, as we find in grammar. It is well known that its practitioners possess a degree of rigorous analysis, precision, classification, and definition that practitioners of logic do not, and that they discuss the forms in which rational concepts are expressed according to the most complete rules.

Meanings are innately accessible to reason and require no special convention, unlike their verbal molds, which vary. Thus, when people learn the most complete forms and molds for meanings while possessing a sound natural disposition, this is more complete, more beneficial, and more conducive to rigorous mastery of the sciences than a conventional discipline dealing with matters innately accessible to reason, which require no special convention. This, by my life, addresses its usefulness in the other sciences.