Philosophy Now Forum

P=P is circular reasoning given the same assertion made in the beginning is the same as in the end. P=P is thus a contradiction.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:34 pm P=P is circular reasoning given the same assertion made in the beginning is the same as in the end. P=P is thus a contradiction.

Oh, for heaven's sake...take a course in logic, will you? Even a 101.

Substitute any number for "P," and you'll see how utterly silly this is. You're now arguing that "5" doesn't mean "5."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 6:11 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:34 pm P=P is circular reasoning given the same assertion made in the beginning is the same as in the end. P=P is thus a contradiction.

Oh, for heaven's sake...take a course in logic, will you? Even a 101.

Substitute any number for "P," and you'll see how utterly silly this is. You're now arguing that "5" doesn't mean "5."

5 airplanes are different from 5 horses, one five does not equivocate to another.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 6:18 pm 5 airplanes are different from 5 horses, one five does not equivocate to another.

I said "number." I said nothing about "objects."

Again, sign up for that basic course in logic. Don't walk...run.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:34 pm P=P is circular reasoning given the same assertion made in the beginning is the same as in the end. P=P is thus a contradiction.

Nope
Whilst it is true that no two Ps can ever be the same, the expression is not saying that.
So
P=P is true
whilst
one P = another P is false

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:34 pm P=P is circular reasoning given the same assertion made in the beginning is the same as in the end. P=P is thus a contradiction.

So if P doesn't equal P, what does equal P?

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 10:43 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:34 pm P=P is circular reasoning given the same assertion made in the beginning is the same as in the end. P=P is thus a contradiction.

So if P doesn't equal P, what does equal P?

I think P is equal to wee.
As when I take a P I tend to wee

P=P

how is a thing is identical with itself contradictory?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 10:54 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 10:43 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:34 pm P=P is circular reasoning given the same assertion made in the beginning is the same as in the end. P=P is thus a contradiction.

So if P doesn't equal P, what does equal P?

I think P is equal to wee.
As when I take a P I tend to wee

At last, philosophy we can apply to real life.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 6:58 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 6:18 pm 5 airplanes are different from 5 horses, one five does not equivocate to another.

I said "number." I said nothing about "objects."

Again, sign up for that basic course in logic. Don't walk...run.

Numbers are a means of counting thus defined by what they count. As such they are objects given multiple people can observe the same thing simultaneously (hence the root for objectivity being multiple aligning subjective states).

Empirical reality presents itself as proof for what a number is or is not. Numbers are phenomenon which correspond to another phenomenon thus defined by the phenomenon they reflect. In observing 5 what one is observing is 5 forms with the most basic form being that of a number line. Numbers are inseperable from the phenomenon they quantify. A number equates to a form, forms equate to further forms, thus number equates to number.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 7:00 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:34 pm P=P is circular reasoning given the same assertion made in the beginning is the same as in the end. P=P is thus a contradiction.

Nope
Whilst it is true that no two Ps can ever be the same, the expression is not saying that.
So
P=P is true
whilst
one P = another P is false

That other P is still a P.

The P exists recursively thus necessitates the P existing in multiple states. As existing in multiple states, through recursion, one P differentiates from another. An example of this would be a single person's identity changing across a span in time. The person in x time and space is not the same person in y time and space yet a common underlying bond of identity repetition is unavoidable. The person is both equal and not equal to him or herself simultaneously.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 11:03 pm P=P

how is a thing is identical with itself contradictory?

Because of circular reasoning, the beginning is the same as the end. It is arguing identity is a loop which contradicts the standard fallacies.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 11:24 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 11:03 pm P=P

how is a thing is identical with itself contradictory?

Because of circular reasoning, the beginning is the same as the end. It is arguing identity is a loop which contradicts the standard fallacies.

so, if I say I am me (and no other), that is, quirk is quirk, my self-reference (circular reasoning) is contradictory and -- in fact -- I am not me

ok, then...

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 11:32 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 11:24 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 11:03 pm P=P

how is a thing is identical with itself contradictory?

Because of circular reasoning, the beginning is the same as the end. It is arguing identity is a loop which contradicts the standard fallacies.

so, if I say I am me (and no other), that is, quirk is quirk, my self-reference (circular reasoning) is contradictory and -- in fact -- I am not me

ok, then...

According to the fallacies any self referentiality is false due to its circular form falling under the contradiction of circular reasoning.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 11:45 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 11:32 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 11:24 pm

Because of circular reasoning, the beginning is the same as the end. It is arguing identity is a loop which contradicts the standard fallacies.

so, if I say I am me (and no other), that is, quirk is quirk, my self-reference (circular reasoning) is contradictory and -- in fact -- I am not me

ok, then...

According to the fallacies any self referentiality is false due to its circular form falling under the contradiction of circular reasoning.

so, who am I?