its essential attributes, while knowledge of the essential attributes depends on knowledge of the essence. Thus, neither the essence nor its essential attributes can be known. This is a compelling argument that demolishes the very foundation of their position. It shows that their stipulations are arbitrary, not founded on any basis of knowledge corresponding to realities.

Rather, they have declared, “This is essential, and this is non-essential,” purely by arbitrary stipulation. They have relied on nothing by which the essential can be distinguished from the non-essential. If the thing defined can be known only through its definition, yet that definition is impossible, then the thing itself cannot be known. This is false.

Tenth:

Disputes arise among them in this field that cannot be resolved on this basis. Whatever entails an equal balance of opposing proofs is false.

Section

Their statement, “No propositional judgment can be known except through the syllogism”—the one whose form and matter they have described—is a negative proposition that is not self-evidently known. They have offered no proof whatsoever for it. They have thus asserted what they have not established and spoken without knowledge. Indeed, knowledge of this negation is unattainable on their own principles. How, then, do they know that no human being can know any propositional judgment that they do not regard as self-evident except through the logical syllogism based on subsumption whose matter and form they have described?