Now let me try to articulate on what I mean by the title. My arguments are , eventually, based on intuition. But what do I mean by intuition? So, I claim that every one of us has the ability to know and grasp the essence of things, but in a peculiar way. The way we do this is by intuition, but by not intuiting the thing in itself , as it has been so many times proposed as an alternative to the Kantian epistemology, but by intuiting the idiomorphic structure of the thing in itself. In order to do that, though, I need to expand my thoughts on the Idiomorphism , that I observe exists in the human mind.

Moreover, I suggest that every one's thought has a unity. Namely, that is attracted to attain knowledge , which itself, has a unity. If we were to kind of degenerate what I am saying we could posit the following thesis : There exists a mathematical type of thought which has the propensity to acquire knowledge ONLY as a mathematical one. So, if we were to transfer this person to a different kind of field ( Philosophy) he wouldn't have the capacity to understand what's going on , as due to the idiomorphic structure of mathematics , there is no way he could get philosophical knowledge.

As you can see , I am talking about a type of compatibility between what I am inclined to know and the nature of the thing in itself. Actually, we could just talk about Idiomorphism and say that a thing in itself ( for example the theory of relativity) and a person share a common characteristic : they have an Idiomorphic structure built within them that they try to express constantly, with each kind in a different way , a way which is correlated, of course, to the Idiomorphic structure that it has. So, we are intuiting the peculiarity of the proposition 2+2=4 and not the proposition itself.

But what about the validity of what I am saying? There is no exception, of course. In order to grasp what I am saying and if we suppose that that's actually the case , you need to have the commensurate Idiomorphic structure . And if you find no reason to believe this , you simply don't have the Idiomorphic structure that is needed in order to do so. Of course, there exists a margin of error and falsity , as I can't be sure that its true.

I am aware of the fact that I need to analyse what I want to say , but I think it is a start.

I am open to any kind of criticism!