Page 8 of 8
Re: Negation of Classical Identity Laws Using Classical Identity Laws.
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2026 2:29 am
by Gary Childress
Telling others not to trust in common sense simply produces chaos and ambiguity, which fuel animosity. What's the good in that?
Re: Negation of Classical Identity Laws Using Classical Identity Laws.
Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2026 11:40 am
by Skepdick
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2026 5:47 pm
"Ill-defined" is the negation of a definition by degree of observing its absence
Ex falso quodlibet. Observing absence is different to negation.
Re: Negation of Classical Identity Laws Using Classical Identity Laws.
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2026 1:28 am
by Eodnhoj7
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2026 11:40 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2026 5:47 pm
"Ill-defined" is the negation of a definition by degree of observing its absence
Ex falso quodlibet. Observing absence is different to negation.
The negation of X is the absence of X as the negation of a thing results in its absence.
Your own argument refutes it self as absence being different then negation is the negation of each as the other thus resulting in the absence of each as the other.
Basically, claim absence and negation are different you negated their unity and by doing so revealed the absence of unity....thus your functional structure negates itself by proving the dynamics of my text in using it.
You have no grounds.