Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 11:04 pm "Mine" is the argument of children.

OK. Then I am a child and language is all I have with which to express that which I perceive.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 11:04 pm I said tell me how they are not both true and false.

Because I don't know what you men by "="

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 11:04 pm Aristotelian identity properties still depend on an inherent form of dichotomy, and "evenness" where contradiction is its grounding.

They depend on semantics. I don't think in statements - I think in questions.

You say A = A is True.

I ask Is A = A?

What do you mean by "=" ?

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 11:12 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 11:04 pm "Mine" is the argument of children.

OK. Then I am a child and language is all I have with which to express that which I perceive.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 11:04 pm I said tell me how they are not both true and false.

Because I don't know what you men by "="

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 11:04 pm Aristotelian identity properties still depend on an inherent form of dichotomy, and "evenness" where contradiction is its grounding.

They depend on semantics. I don't think in statements - I think in questions.

You say A = A is True.

I ask Is A = A?

What do you mean by "=" ?

That is the point, definition through relation, with all relation as one part relative to another shows "A" as defined, but "=" is undefined and can be any variety of symbols. Hence the argument is both true and false.

A more accurate representation of the law of identity would be: P▪P

with "▪" being a variable for any symbol of relation and what is "unknown" effectively is known.