Could you correct the errors in my page?

Question

I am not a native English. I like to report the errors in the page posted at http://predictor.awardspace.com/predictor.php

This page would be of great use to the students.

Answer 1

Why do you post this message on category philosophy?

Answer 2

The coherency for the words on the first page linked to your question here are only coherent for each other and do not link to sensing as life is lived but only to the page as it is living for the other. The page is not living for link clicker human clicking the pages link but merely subsumes and subsists input of the user other (the link clicker human); it is not an interpretation for the user but an interpretation for the pages program and only serves its own coherency and not the coherency of and for the other user, i.e. it does not seek the conceptual coherency in the other user but only enforces its own coherency. Such is NOT a living consciousness much less a self reflecting consciousness; it is not acting as a consciousness.

'1. Our ordinary Knowing has before itself only the object which it knows, but does not at first make an object of itself, i.e., of the Knowing. But the whole which is extant in the act of knowing is not the object alone, but also the Ego that knows, and the relation of the Ego and the object to each other, i.e. Consciousness. '

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archiv...

Ego: 'The readiest instance of Being-for-self is found in the ‘I’. We know ourselves as existents, distinguished in the first place from other existents, and with certain relations thereto. But we also come to know this expansion of existence (in these relations) reduced, as it were, to a point in the simple form of being-for-self. When we say ‘I’, we express this reference-to-self which is infinite, and at the same time negative. Man, it may be said, is distinguished from the animal world, and in that way from our nature altogether, by knowing himself as ‘I’: which amounts to saying that natural things never attain free Being-for-self, but as limited to Being-there-and-then, are always and only Being for another.'

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archiv...

"I" as in 'Identity'.


The Will is positive, the Judgment is negative..

The grammar is essentially correct and is within norms for contingent grammatical usage.

Answer 3

"Parts compose wholes. Wholes contain parts."
--> this is just a suggestion, i'm not sure if it will change the meaning of what you want to say... perhaps go with "Parts compose a whole. A whole contains parts." i think that the word whole can't be plural.

"Unity cannot be as part if nothing includes Unity. As wholes include Unity, Unity is as part.
Unity cannot be as whole if nothing composes Unity. As parts compose Unity, Unity is as whole."
--> for this, instead of "as" use "a". (e.g. Unity cannot be a part if nothing includes Unity.)

"What are the parts of Unity if Unity is as whole composed of parts?"
--> same thing here, use "a" instead of "as"

i think for the succeeding entries, it has similar errors...

Answer 4

it may desire to be that the positioning is down. in case you may get entry to different web content, you're ok. additionally, in case you may get entry to yet another digital mail software, you're in stable shape. i could attempt to isolate the subject. (a) Is all of it web content, or basically digital mail ones (b) Is all of it digital mail web content, or basically Yahoo and Hotmail.

Answer 5

no i wont correct it for you.

Answer 6

i'll see what i can do

Answer 7

I will try...