The first point concerns their statement:

“Conception can be attained only through definition.”

This may be examined from several angles.

First: There is no doubt that one who denies a claim must provide evidence, just as one who affirms it must. A proposition, whether negative or affirmative, requires evidence unless it is self-evident. Negation without knowledge is simply speaking without knowledge. Their statement that conceptions can be attained only through definition is a negative proposition, and it is not self-evident. What, then, is their evidence for it? If this is a statement made without knowledge, yet it is the very first foundation they laid, how can speaking without knowledge serve as the foundation for the criterion of knowledge and for what they claim is a rule-governed instrument whose observance safeguards the mind against error in thought?

Second: It may be said that “definition” can mean the thing defined itself, but this is not what they intend here. It can also mean a statement indicating the essence of the thing defined, which is what they intend here. It sets out in detail what the name indicates in general. We therefore say: If a definition is a statement made by the definer, then the definer must have identified the thing defined either through a definition or without one.

If the former, the same question applies to the second definition as to the first, necessarily resulting in circularity or an infinite regress. If the latter, their negative claim is invalidated—namely, their statement that it can be known only through definition.

Third: All nations—those engaged in the sciences and doctrines, and those engaged in practical pursuits