By simply eliminating two possibilities we are able to determine actuality.
If we claim that existence presupposes identity, which we would claim because without existence there would be no identity, then existence would have no identity. But, because, non-existence is the opposite of existence, non-existence would have identity. But with non-existence there nothing to be non-existence, for non-existence is nothingness, and, consequentially, non-existence cannot have identity (non-existence cannot be itself). Because non-existence cannot have identity, existence must have identity, and, therefore, existence cannot presuppose identity.
If identity presupposes existence, then existence would have identity. Because of this non-existence would have non-identity (nothingness would not be itself), but with non-existence, non-existence cannot not be itself, for non-existence is nothingness, thereby non-existence cannot have non-identity. If this is so, then existence cannot have identity, and, thereby, identity does not presuppose existence.
Since it is impossible that existence presuppose identity or that identity presuppose existence, then existence and identity are in actuality equal. If they are equal in actuality, then they are one and the same in reality.
Identity = context = existence; all simultaneously arising features of the same ‘event’ (no ‘cause and effect’).
‘Identity’ (at any moment), is the universe (at that moment)!
Perceiver and perceived is one!
Which it does. To say something exists is just to say there is a thing x such that x is identical to x.
I don’t buy this for two reasons. One, it seems sensible to say a unicorn is identical to itself without saying a unicorn exists. Moreover, we can claim the identity of two sets without actually countenancing their existences. We can say the set of unicorns is identical to the set of single-horned horses; they are both identical sets, since their both have the same number of members (viz. 0); yet we need not countenance the sets themselves or the unicorns themselves in order to make this assertion.
You’re right about this. It was be meaningless to suppose existence is identical to anything (even itself) since existence statements presuppose the only identity we work with in logic that is a dyadic relation between two THINGS (existence is not a THING in the strict sense – things are OBJECTS; existence is what we assert regarding an object that has such-and-such a property).
By my reasoning above, you wouldn’t be lead to this conclusion since NOW you’re treating existence as an object which can stand in a relation to another object (viz. itself, the relation being “is identical to”).
This stuff just made me dizzy haha. NOW you’re treating non-existence as a predicate, that which is completed into a sentence when its grammatical blank is filled with the name of an object; it’s not that there is NOTHING to be non-existence; rather it’s nonsense to say either way. It’s like going off on an argument in math where you start with something like “1 x 10^/5” – sure, using some associations you have with these symbols, you could go off pseudo-evaluating the expression and pseudo-simplify it to an expression like “100000”; your arguments may be interesting for psychologists to inspect, but for the mathematician it’s a waste of time since, while the conclusion is well-formed, the premise isn’t.
In order to completely define/describe ‘lycurgus’, one must include ‘your’ context; your ‘time’ (moment) of existence, your ‘culture/society’, the geography and universal ‘location’, all influencing factors, like the Butterfly Effect, the complete definition/context of ‘you’ is the entire universe at the moment of definition. There is no real ‘difference’ between ‘you’ and anything/anyone else, by definition.
The entire universe/existence, at the moment, is not a ‘movie’, it is a ‘tapestry’, and can only be completely ‘known’, moment a’ moment, as the sum total of all Perspectives.
yes, i feel attracted to the fact that people (such as yourself) continue to post such irrelevant idiocy even after its been sufficiently disproven and shown to be blatantly illogical… so, whats your point? that no one should post anywhere when they disagree with that topic? that when others are guilty of serious logical error, that, on a PUBLIC DEBATE FORUM those who are able to see through that error should not be able to express it…?
seriously name, do you even think at all before you type your responses?
I certainly will before responding to such as you.
Nothing has been disproven, especially by you. Your testosterone seems to cloud your ‘possible’ intellect.
I’ll expand my noise reduction filter to include you.
Bye bye
My argument is empty of content, therefore it cannot be judged by it’s content; since it has none. It only has form, and, therefore, can only be judged by it’s form; which is perfectly correct.
](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}