CRITICIZE THESE STATMENTS - ?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

What a characteristic is = What a characteristic has
What a character is ≠ What a character has
A character has a characteristic.

What an equivalence is = What an equivalence has
What a difference is ≠ What a difference has
A difference has an equivalence in itself.

What an invariant is = What an invariant has
What a variant is ≠ What a variant has
A variant has invariants.

I REQUEST YOU TO CRITICIZE THESE STATEMENTS.
It is a part of my thesis.

2

Define ‘has’, please.

3

First, tell me what the hell they mean.

4

Stellamonika? Hi.

A characteristic is = what a characteristic has

Doesn’t that presuppose that a characteristic is self-defining? In the same way, perhaps, as TIME is self defining (in the sense that time cannot be explained without any reference to an explanatory element of itself, eg time consists of hours, minutes and seconds,

where hours, minutes and seconds=Time

Are they reversible? Like this definition is

What a characteristic has=what a characteristic is?

Because if this is not the case, then you can’t really say that because in logic (from what i briefly understand)

A=B
therefore
B=A

But B can also include other elements, is this right? B can equal C, but A doesn’t necessarily equal C?

Like
Apple (A) is a fruit (B)
A fruit (B) is an Apple (A)
BUT
A fruit (B) is an Orange (C)
THEREFORE
Apple (A) is an Orange (C)

From the logic…
A = B
B = A
A = B
B = C
Therefore
A = C

THere has to be something wrong with the above… :expressionless:

LmAo I bet there is…

ANYWAYS

Sorry, thats my apparently pitiful effort to analyze whatever you wrote down…

:unamused: