Some tables have soul and some not

Dear Professor, My graetest intellectul debt is to Frege,
the German logician, mathematician and phylosopher (of science). For some strange reasons he still has the most 'students' in the USA and is rarely known in Germany. I learned English by myself to be able to read about him because the most publications were in English. Thanks to Frege I am able to analyse any statement made in logical
way. The most 'logical errors' are made because of the deceitful simplicity of the 'subject-predicat' form. Frege was the first to explain 5 different logical contents 'hidden' in the 'S is P' sentence form.
Rik obviously thought that he needs to know first from which country I am to be able to 'çharacterize' me. However he already had a preconception of what a Frenchman, Dutchman, German, etc. 'are'. I as a individual person was actually not relevant. His logical error was to think that 'all Germans are Fx&Gx' is somehow clear and stuffed with 'meaning' as well with 'reference'. This sentence is however the so called 'sentencial function' which means a sentence which contains variables. Variables
are not names but logical places in which one need to put
some name to make a sentence from a sentencial function.
If Rik thinks to know what 'all' refers to then he must be
also able to know what 'some' refers to. Both are quantifiers. If so he can become the reachest American ever in two years time by providing names by :'someone has
stolen my car', 'someone has stolen my x' etc.
You stated that some of us in this discussion use 'sterotypes' but your own 'typical American' is a prototype of a 'sterotype'. You dear Professor also made logical error connected with quantifiers.

Regards,

Dear Timetel,
in your case you may show up again after 29 posts. What is your favourite shake?

Dear Nandric, Inna, Rok2id,
Don't forget that learning a language enabels you to understand the culture of a nation or region much better. Having learned no other language sometimes supports building up mental barriers.

Best @ Fun Only

Dear Thuchan, As you already know I speak 5 languages. I wrote many e-mails to you in German and you was very kind reg. your valuation of my German. As a military historian you should know that Russian was an obligatory subject in the educational system of the Eastern bloc.Ie you may missed my Russian. I know that language capabilities make one 'richer' in social-cultural sense but, alas, not smarter. One of course need some language to put his thoughts in the linquistic form. But if one has not a clear
thought no language will be of ony help. Wittgenstein thougt that thinking and speaking are the same. But I was always skeptical about this as well of other of his theories. To me he was always some kind of 'second hand' Frege who was his 'intellectual father' btw. Recent research has shown that he was wrong. My own case would be very confusing btw. Ie I would need to answer the question in which language I thought the things that I stated. Say: 'as the Dutch bastard', 'the German Nazi','the Serbian murderer',etc.
However I am sure that Rik is no more thinking about me as a 'Frenchy'(dank God), Dutchman, etc. but as a individual person with whom he can exchange his thoughts. Idem Ninna I would hope.

Regards,

Regards, Nikola: Twice, in less than twenty-four hours, you have taken what I've written out of context. The error is yours.

Chocolate

Peace,

Dear Professor, Any general statement involve quantifiers.
That is why they are called 'universal quantifiers'. The
'some' as existential one (There is some x, such that) imply the existance of some entity. I stated that I am able to logicaly anylise any statment made, not because I am smarter, but because I learned this from Frege. I spend more then 20 years for my study of Frege and am still learning. Frege nowhere mentioned 'contex'. It was Wittgenstein who made this 'reproach' to Frege but from their correspondence it is clear that Wittgenstein never
understud Frege's explanation of 'S is P' sentence form.
Wittgenstein used this sentence form his whole life with
as consequence that nobody knows what he realy meant. Ie with 'context' one can enter any forest or labyrinth of the so called 'çoncepts' as is so evident with Kant and Hegel.
Desperate to find the way out from all the concepts he invented Hegel concluded: there is the unity of the opposits and even the unity of the contradictory. This 'great' German philosopher had no idea what he was talking about. As Frege also explained : a concept is a fuction with one argument while the relation is a function with two or more arguments. Those functions are of course expressions containing varibles such that by replacing variables with 'names' one get an 'real sentence'. Frege was btw the first to state that the sentence and not the 'concept' or a word is the basis for any linquistic and scientific analysis.

Regards,