GENIUS FORUMS

in reality things can't be themselves because things lack any sort of stable 'inherent self' to be.

A is not-A.

A tea cup only occurs when a bunch of non-teacups come together, and another non-teacup entity observes those things and discriminates between the parts mentally.

Every thing depends on something else for its identity, nothing exists definitely and seperate. A can not be A.
A requires not-As for its existance.

The law of identity doesn't work.

Whenever we call anything A it is in fact a collection of not-As.


So if every thing is made up of things that are not itself.
then Everything is not itself.


lol?

hades wrote:A tea cup only occurs when a bunch of non-teacups come together, and another non-teacup entity observes those things and discriminates between the parts mentally.

Every thing depends on something else for its identity, nothing exists definitely and seperate. A can not be A.
A requires not-As for its existance.
lol?

A hades only occurs when a bunch of non-hades come together, and another non-hades observes those things and discriminates between the parts mentally.

Every thing depends on something else for its identity, nothing exists definitely and seperate. hades can not be hades.
hades requires not-hades for its existence.

Get it?

prince wrote: A hades only occurs when a bunch of non-hades come together, and another non-hades observes those things and discriminates between the parts mentally.

Every thing depends on something else for its identity, nothing exists definitely and seperate. hades can not be hades.
hades requires not-hades for its existence.

Get it?

Thats what I said.

Hades is essentialy that which is not-Hades

A is not-A

Hades,

You are actually affirming the principle of A=A without knowing it.

You wrote:

in reality things can't be themselves because things lack any sort of stable 'inherent self' to be.

A is not-A.

A tea cup only occurs when a bunch of non-teacups come together, and another non-teacup entity observes those things and discriminates between the parts mentally.

If it is the case that a tea cup is really just a collection of other things, then that is what it is. In other words, as a collection of other things, it has the identity of a collection of other things. A=A.

You are allowing the redundant term "tea cup" to distract you from recognizing the identity in this situation.

Every thing depends on something else for its identity, nothing exists definitely and seperate. A can not be A.

A requires not-As for its existance.

The law of identity doesn't work.

Whenever we call anything A it is in fact a collection of not-As.

What you are really arguing against is the notion that things inherently exist. That's perfectly fine, but it doesn't work as an argument against A=A.

All that A=A needs to come into effect is the appearance of things existing. It doesn't need anything further. A tea cup in a dream still has the identity of a tea cup in a dream, despite the fact that it isn't real.

Indeed, the fact that the cup isn't real means that it has the identity of a cup not being real. And it is precisely this identity which enables us to conclude that it isn't real. So again, A=A.


-

A is A

But A is not "A"

mm/.?

if you want to prove something is a truth you may use that

but in our eyes and our reality we define things as what it is, not what it is not

,_,?

A is for Apple, and sometimes is for abstract. An Apple is a unique quality for every apple. For all apples A, is Apple quality. No apple is the equal of any other apple except in apple quality. To have half an apple, or a bushel of apples, or apple pie, one must have a fixed idea of apple quality that remains unchanged regardless of the actions performed on it, and it is this quality that is conserved. This conservation, and this identity is the understanding necessary to deal with abstract and scientific concepts, and is not an understanding we are born with.
Modern physics was made possible by the principal of inertia, which is the conservation of rectilinear and uniform motion, which, in moving objects is A. Modern chemistry is made possible by an understanding of the conservation of mass. A continuous quantity, such as a length or a volume can only be used in reasoning if it a continuous whole, irrespective of the arrangement of its parts. A number, or quality is only intelligible if it remains identical to itself, whatever the distribution of the units of which it is composed. It is not of itself abstract, but it allows us to consider qualities we cannot grasp, like justice or liberty, as qualities unchanged by context, time, or place. Identity is not in the least an abstraction, but is more the reality we are dealing with in abstract terms, and the strength or the weakness of the notion is that it is understood deductively, and is learned.

propellerbeanie wrote:[A number or quality] is not of itself abstract, but it allows us to consider qualities we cannot grasp, like justice or liberty, as qualities unchanged by context, time, or place.

You've got to be kidding! Justice and liberty are outstanding examples of concepts that are defined by context, time and place in a very easy to follow manner. The current terrror-war is mostly revolving around a different view about what they mean at both sides. And mostly it's caused by people not wanting to realize that different valid views on their own 'timeless' truths are possible. They are upholding the wrong eternal truths! Suffering follows.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

propellerbeanie wrote:[A number or quality] is not of itself abstract, but it allows us to consider qualities we cannot grasp, like justice or liberty, as qualities unchanged by context, time, or place.

You've got to be kidding! Justice and liberty are outstanding examples of concepts that are defined by context, time and place in a very easy to follow manner. The current terrror-war is mostly revolving around a different view about what they mean at both sides. And mostly it's caused by people not wanting to realize that different valid views on their own 'timeless' truths are possible. They are upholding the wrong eternal truths! Suffering follows.

If the identity is of a line, and you cut the line in half, then you have two half lines. The concept of line is in no sense changed by the length. The concept of justice, while always being a thing of measures is itself impossible to measure, and as a result is always known in situ, and in vivo, but never in vitro. It is an abstraction in conversation, that is more or less real, and is always vitally important, but has no substantial reality. We know it when it is missing and feel it when it is there, but unlike the conservation idea in physics it cannot be counted on from deductive reason and caculated in advance. What we can say of justice is rather limited; that there is such a thing, and that between two people in dispute, justice for one is justice for the other. What can you add?

propellerbeanie wrote: If the identity is of a line, and you cut the line in half, then you have two half lines. The concept of line is in no sense changed by the length. The concept of justice, while always being a thing of measures is itself impossible to measure, and as a result is always known in situ, and in vivo, but never in vitro. It is an abstraction in conversation, that is more or less real, and is always vitally important, but has no substantial reality. We know it when it is missing and feel it when it is there, but unlike the conservation idea in physics it cannot be counted on from deductive reason and caculated in advance. What we can say of justice is rather limited; that there is such a thing, and that between two people in dispute, justice for one is justice for the other. What can you add?

First the concept of line, which is that which connects or relates two different points in geometry. Cutting it in half as you suggest would destroy that line. But you are actually creating/removing one or two other points in the process so that a 'line' continues to exist in this particular geometric playground.

Now if one defines justice or liberty in a certain way, the definition is based on the playground of words and concepts of a specific time and audience. One draws relations between certain points and a concept is born. Cutting a concept in half is really creating a new concept, which might have some parallels with the former one. Now how do we measure the similarities? What's the reference point? Another concept?

But my beef was with your remark: "qualities unchanged by context, time, or place." Could you be more specific which are these unchangeable qualities and makes them so static?

Just as in the case of a -line-, which is an identity unchanged by length or time, Justice is an identity. We know intances of it in space and time; but if justice as a concept did not maintain the identity of justice over space and time we would not be able to consider it at all. It would always be like Heraclitus' river, always changing so completely we could not recognize it.
Justice, having an identity, can be considered. Justice having no tangible reality cannot be measured. The one quality I can percieve in Justice, is, that if we have justice in question, justice for you will be justice for me. Justice for all is a possibility. Justice for some, and not for all is an impossibility.

PB