The second argument:

To this day, they have not established an undisputed definition of anything: whatever some of them claim, others contest. If the fundamentals can be conceived only through definitions, it follows that no one to this day has known anything, nor would anyone remain awaiting its validation. For the person presenting it requires knowledge acquired without a definition, and such knowledge is manifold. Thus mankind would possess no knowledge whatsoever. This is sophistry and fallacious reasoning.

The third argument:

Those who discourse on definitions constitute a small minority of mankind, particularly those engaged in the discipline of logic. Its founder was Aristotle, and a group of people followed him in it. Yet it is well known that mankind—ordinary people and specialists alike—possesses knowledge without this. Their claim that “Knowledge depends on it” is therefore invalid.

As for the prophets, there is no doubt that they have no need of it. The same applies to their followers, both scholars and ordinary people. Indeed, the first three generations of this community—who surpassed all mankind in learning and knowledge—did not engage in laboriously devising