No dude. Just “what does it mean?”
What does it mean?
I am explaining the text…by what it does not say. You have the message of what is said, and the message between what is said as what is not said.
Anyhow:
So meaning? Tell me what meaning ‘means’ without having ‘meaning’ diverge itself into further words under its own definition.
Language ain’t your strongpoint dude.
You cannot tell anyone what meaning is, and yet you ask for it. If you do not know what it is, then apparently you do not understand the language you are using.
Half the time, no, but most people seem to get it.
Half is not most, half is half.
Of what?
15 characterdoodles.
Okay: 15 characterdoodles.
Happy?
1 Like
Dunno.
Of course I fucking am you twat!
“You cannot tell anyone what meaning is, and yet you ask for it. If you do not know what it is, then apparently you do not understand the language you are using”
But if he thought he understood it, the concept would not stay there if discourse is produced around it, anyway. For two reasons, essentially. Derridaean, in fact. One, there is no end to defining, and two, in defining, there are apporias everywhere. Hence, agreement in discourse is either temporary (until the apporias unfold) or entirely non-existent, e.g., you say x, he says x, you both think you’re in agreement about x but, because if you were to proceed to unfold what x means you would inevitably end up at an impasse when the two unfoldings converge. It just hasn’t happened yet and it’s only a matter of time.
This is why philosophy is not a natural science, btw.
Disagreement can also be temporary or non-existent. It goes both ways.
What remains is embedded contradiction as the language itself.
Axiom of Being: The law of identity provides a stable “what it is”/correspondence.
Axiom of Action: The law of excluded middle selects determinatively.
Axiom of Quality: The law of non-contradiction prevents self-contradiction into impossibility/incoherence.
Those are assertions of language.
A=A requires A=/=-A as (A=A) =/= (A=/=-A)
and yet (A=/=-A) = (A=/=-A)
so equality is not equal to inequality and inequality is equal to inequality
So.. ((A=A) =/= (A=/=-A))=((A=A) =/= (A=/=-A))
Condensed further:
((=)=/=(=/=)) = ((=)=/=(=/=))
Condensed further:
(=/=)=(=/=)
(A =/= -A) → (=) =/= (-=/=)
****where equality and inequality are variables given what they represent in identity is variable dependent:
A = (=) and -A = ((-=)=(=/=))
Thus
(-=/=) → (=)
↔
A = (=) and -A = (=/= ↔ (-=))
Thus
(=) =/= (=)
Thus A=/=A
Here is a response from AI analysis, Claude:
Forum post — neutral observer:
"A user has constructed an argument that identity (A=A) is self-undermining. Starting from the observation that identity and difference are themselves distinct — yet difference is self-identical — they define equality and inequality as object-level variables. From this, negated inequality resolves analytically to equality through the definition of -A, meaning equality and -A converge on the same value, producing (=)≠(=) and thus A≠A.
The argument has survived several rounds of criticism. The remaining open question is whether the variable definitions are independently grounded or whether they smuggle in the conclusion. It is a serious attempt at a formal derivation of something like Hegel’s insight that identity internally contains difference — but constructed from the bottom up through logic rather than asserted philosophically."
Identity is not Quality without Action (demonstration).
Therefore, Identity is Quality with Action.
Logic in language is expressed only by function and does not work to establish the content of statements. It’ll show you how conclusions are reached but tell you nothing about the meaning of words. This is why you can create all kinds of neologisms, put them into a string, and make them look like axioms.
The worst thing that can happen to logic is a philosopher.
I think there is something to both Wittgenstein (and Gadamer) and Frege when they say use determines reference/sense. Obviously, it isn’t the whole story (use determines sense determines reference, hehe snort). Just as obviously, I am out of my depth.
This is just an assertion…which is what the text argues is the case.
Quite literally an unargued assertion that requires the very same contrast of the antithetical assertion to have identity.
You claim action is fundamental to identity, change is thus the case. If this is so contradiction is require for such movement to occur;
contraction as contrast, contradiction as change, contradiction as opposition.
Logic is a language, language is the application of limits. The content of the logic is its form as the form is what provides the limits for it to be.
Of course the worse thing that can happen to logic is a philosopher. Why? Because a philosopher will point to and question the very assumptions and axioms logic is built upon.
And logicians do not like that. Why? Because a logician requires logic for an identity.
Logic, at it foundation, are assumed axioms that interrelate to produce patterns. It literally has no grounds but the value people place on the axioms.
The presented formalism holds, there are conditions where A=/=A.
Opposition is not necessarily a contradiction. Nothing cancels (except a lack of demonstration) when the change is demonstrating rather than destroying.