Michael asked:

I am an undergraduate philosophy student who hopes to attend a graduate school next fall. Last term
I took up an independent study, and wrote a paper in which I presented a point that I couldn't quite
convey to the two philosophy professors in my department whom I have developed relationships with.
I think that they see my argument as an evasion, a sidestepping of metaphysics, and yet it seems to
me that it is important and must be addressed. I don't imagine that my argument is original, but I
would very much like to know what philosopher(s) have made it before or taken it seriously, so that I
might explore the idea further and find a better way to express it (unless every sees it as an evasion!).

It is simply this: No one can deny a proposition that they do not understand. For example: If I
encounter someone who maintains that square triangles exist, it can not be the case that they are
referring to two-dimensional polygons that have both three and four sides, for that is a contradictory
expression.

============

Well without seeing the paper it's hard to comment. Offhand, I'd say that if you showed something like
that to me, I'd want to be (and youto be) very very clear on what you think "understand" means. If
you're claiming that we (or the "genius") have direct access to the world, to truth, then perhaps you're
saying something metaphysical... maybe. But on the face of it, all you're saying is something
psychological, which is pretty trivial, isn't it. And even given direct access, you'd have to be very
careful about simple mistakes, illusions, etc. Further, what do you mean, really? That no one can
meaningfullydeny such a proposition, right? Because certainly I can deny anything I like. Ok, now
what does "meaningfully" mean? Something like, a denial is worthless unless you understand. Ok...
now what? Is a denial meaningless? No. Then you mean something like, we should place no
credence on it, it has no useful function, right? But all that is merely psychological, or at best has
something to do with verification, which is an epistemological issue.

It seems to me that the only way you're going to relate this to metaphysics is to become a Platonist of
some sort, so that you can say that in order to understand something you have access to a world of
ideal forms or essences. Thenyou can make epistemology a branch of metaphysics. If you really
want to go this route, you might check out Edmund Husserl; he felt somewhat the same way. But he
spent a lot of time denying that he was a Platonist, without convincing many people. However, I think
that his approach may be what you're really looking for. Speaking for myself, I think that he was
radically mistaken, and I'm not the only one who has that opinion (really, I should say, "who has come
to that conclusion"). But look him up.

Steven Ravett Brown