"OK -- why? This isn't an argument. You're offering nothing here, etc"
Because you ask about very elementary things. I leave the reference and read you:
- Kuhn, T. S. (1962): The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.


"If the latter, why am I particularly interested in "pp. 105"?"
The same. It is the quote from the classic essay entitled Was ist Metaphysik? (1929).
Wonderful, pure art of writing ... although scientifically null. Read it.

It is a fascinating book. Karl wanted to leave something good in the world. Enjoy it.

"Useful to determine a current scientific theory" is incoherent. Philosophy plays no role in scientific theory? Of course it does. The basis for modern science has its roots in Greek ontology, which is the subject of this thread. It's not simply a matter of philology, it's a history of Western thought and, therefore, modern science. — Xtrix

Excuse me, but saying that contemporary science has something to do with the Greek concept of nature, perhaps, probably indicates that one has vague ideas of one and the other. Even the conception of the physical during the Enlightenment is not related to contemporary physics. By the way, have you heard of Einstein?

"Heidegger wrote well"? Says who? I didn't think he wrote particularly well, myself. What have you read, exactly, to make a claim one way or another about him I wonder? — Xtrix

For example, Heidegger, M (1976) Wegmarken, Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, in Gesamtausgabe; V.9. I Abteilung : Veroffentlichte Schriften 1914-1970, pp. 105 ss.

It is an elemental conception of the 20th century. Please read:
Popper, K. R. (2002): Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography, London & N.Y.: Routledge [1978], 7, pp. 15 ss.

I think that the relationship between a proposition and what it enunciates, is analogous to the relation between the written words and the letters used to write them. Letters have a pragmatic function in the structure of the word, and words have a pragmatic or technical function in the formulation of theories.
The analysis of a concept is a legitimate philological task, but little or nothing useful to determine a current scientific theory. Heidegger wrote well, but not for scientists.

Pl., Cra., 402 a8 - a10.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plat.+Crat.+402a&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0171

I had a text analysis teacher who said that no one consolidates identity except assholes. At school we all distinguish assholes, but then we enter adolescence and we all become assholes. Some of us realize how stupid we are (usually after being so stupid idiots trying to get a lady) and, therefore, we stop being so. Others are more arrogant and are on their way to becoming whole assholes. Best regards and read Aaron James.

Read "Proof on a External World" in Moore, G.E. (1959): Philosophical Papers, VII, London: G Allen & Unwin Ltd.

In my world, no one talks about politics or religion. We prefer to keep friends. It is a naturally diminishing whole. Be good.

The terminological debate makes sense to philologists. However, a philosopher who has replaced real problems with grammatical problems, has been lost. Because then, he can only talk about physics or mathematics. Only.
The relationship between a proposition and what it enunciates, is analogous to the relation between the written words and the letters used to write them. Letters have a pragmatic function in the structure of the word, and words have a pragmatic or technical function in the formulation of theories.
Antonio Machado repeated: "Today is always still". However much you define the terms of that proposition, you will not understand the meaning of it. You will only understand mathematics and physics. Your Bible will be the "Tractatus". Amen, bro. I don’t believe to know what philosophy is. But I know what it is not.

[Excuse my bad english]

"The use of the word "believe" for hunch, or guess, or estimate, or so many other words is fine...except there are times when it makes more sense to use "the other words.""

Okay. Everybody speaks about physics and math.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_number

It is not a conjecture. There is proof that between two real numbers there is always another real number. That is valid in base 10 and, in Spanish, in base 27 (just assign a number for each letter). In English, in base 26. But it is not a conjecture. About the theorem cited, see the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_diagonal_argument

The "Poetics" of Aristotle is perhaps the text that best preserves the style of the author. All the others were retouched by his disciples, normalizing them into a structure or "corpus". The first of the books is conserved, in which two poetic products that were obsolete at the time are treated: the epic and, above all, the tragic poetry. In the fourth century B.C. comedy (particularly Menander) triumphed.
For lovers of nuances, the version to read is this:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a1999.01.0055
If you read a translation, you will understand only what the translator came to understand. Apart from that a complex language like classical Greek cannot be translated into English without loss of form and content. Translator... traitor.
Be courageous.

Saint Thomas would say that all human conduct is explained in terms of three capital sins: greed, lust, and anger. The police work alike. All crime is due to greed, lust or anger. In both cases, they restrict the human to the most negative in our species, don’t they?

Capitalism, as the dominant economic system, is not responsible for all the problems that one has with one’s partner...

Ok. If I were Saint Thomas (or simply, F. Copleston) I would tell you that the only non-fictional object is God. And your abduction, in that case, would be a Martian abduction.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. [Santayana]

"The a priori unchanging structures of the eternal aspect of existence"... The heaviest syntagm I've ever read.
You assume that there are structures, that they are immutable (Plato lives) and "a priori" (Kant lives), and that they belong to a quality (which, moreover, is eternal) of what exists (Plato lives your thought, intensely). But when we look at experience, we observe that we must appeal to tradition (because in metaphysics, all we probably have is tradition) and we notice that we must deal with the world, the soul and God, but not for any reason, but necessarily, although by convention.Otherwise, perhaps we should not even speak (Aristotle lives in me).

Correction: "Homer expresses it when Athena removes the mist that covered the eyes of Diomedes"
Sorry.

Both propositions are plausible.
Homer expresses it when Athena takes away the mist that covered her eyes (Il., V 128-129). Human beings do not see well, but perceive other things. We do not see color and we only see color (except if you suffer from achromatopsia).
The problem is another, already cited by Leibniz: that two scientific theories about the same objects in the world can be equally consistent in themselves, but inconsistent with each other.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

"What can logic do without information?"

Logic is information.

No one exists. We are misinformed corpses.

As far as I have read, in metaphysics one should not speak of first principles, but rather of first objects. That is, the world, the soul and God.

Could you indicate the specific appointment, please?
Nietzsche didn't write in English.
See:
http://www.nietzschesource.org/#eKGWB

The truth is like a bus. At every stop, some things get on and some things get off. But the route is always unique.

Infinity is something else. Somewhere, in the number pi, are all the phrases you have uttered during your life and, moreover, in the same order in which they were uttered. A little further on, there are all the books that disappeared because of the burning of the Library of Alexandria. In another place, there are all the speeches that Demosthenes gave and that he never wrote, but with the letters inverted, as in a mirror. Yes, the conception of what is infinite is too vast for me to grasp well in finite examples.

"Why is there something rather than nothing? was labeled as the fundamental question of metaphysics by Martin Heidegger".
That question was raised by Leibniz. Heidegger paraphrases it.