Moderator: Flannel Jesus
nameta9 wrote:The Principle of Identity states that A is not B
Flannel Jesus wrote:nameta9 wrote:The Principle of Identity states that A is not B
What principle of identity? You talking about the Law of Identity? That's not even close to what it says.
Flannel Jesus wrote:You seem to be proposing some sort of new logical system that does not have the same rules as our conventional logic, but you're not being explicit about what the rules are within this system. Vaguety is the cloak of a foolish idea. Be clear, be bold, be straightforward. Don't be a coward and hide behind confusion and smoke screens and obscurity. Come out with your theory, make it explicit. You have nothing to fear except words. Say what you're trying to say out loud son, it's time.
Flannel Jesus wrote:You seem to be proposing some sort of new logical system that does not have the same rules as our conventional logic, but you're not being explicit about what the rules are within this system. Vaguety is the cloak of a foolish idea. Be clear, be bold, be straightforward. Don't be a coward and hide behind confusion and smoke screens and obscurity. Come out with your theory, make it explicit. You have nothing to fear except words. Say what you're trying to say out loud son, it's time.
Flannel Jesus wrote:no that's retarded. that's not a new logical system, that's just a whole bunch of demands that have nothing to do with anything.


nameta9 wrote:In order for some entity to be itself, it must contain, within itself all of the things that it is not, existence itself is produced by comparing itself to what it is not, an item expresses itself by comparing itself to what it is not, and since an item A is not item B and is not item C and is not the pebble down the street, etc, each item - entity contains an infinite number of items that "it is not". But all of those items in turn must contain what they are not, so for example item B must contain item A in order to compare itself to item A and see what it is not, so as to not get confused, to not "lose itself", to not risk the tragedy of itself "not existing", to express itself, to distinguish itself: B must contain A, and say to itself, I am not A, I am B. But in the meanwhile, simultaneously, as we said in the beginning, A must contain B to distinguish itself, so you end up getting an infinite recursion of items containing themselves and denying themselves, A must contain B (to deny B) and B must contain A (to deny A), so every entity, item is a self contradiction, the law of identity is false, an entity A cannot be itself and cannot not be itself, it doesn't know what to be, in fact it may be a third state, a third symbol, call it K. So then all entities contain all kinds of states, each more abstract, more impossible to comprehend, more illogical than ever, the state V, state W, and so on, LOGIC BREAKS DOWN, THE DEATH OF LOGIC.
AN EGG MAN
rackedrick wrote:Why does A need B to define itself? If this is true wouldn't it be true that the experience of seeing red would need blue to justify itself. How does blue add to seeing the color Red? Red, being just one color in the spectrum, would need to be defined by all the other colors? Certainly, A is not B and can be defined as all that which is not A, but how would this make A dependent?


ZenKitty wrote:How would you know what anything without making some comparison to something else? You wouldn't.
ZenKitty wrote:.......opposites define each other. If this weren't the case, the law of non-contradiction would be no good.
ZenKitty wrote:.....compare non-existence
rackedrick wrote:I know what lemon tastes like does this mean I need to know what watermelon tastes like?
rackedrick wrote:The ball is blue. The ball is green. Two contradictory statements but not opposites. I open my eyes and see that the ball is green. Knowing it is green means I have to know what blue is?
rackedrick wrote:Can you compare non-existence?


Return to Science, Technology, and Math
Users browsing this forum: No registered users