GENIUS FORUMS

Dan,

In one of your videos you suggested throwing A=A at relativists.

Recently I tried to argue for Aristotle's Law of Identity, in which I used "A=A" as an example. I stated that the law of identity, or law of non-contradiction states that a thing is itself and not something else.

A few of my debators exclaimed "Why can't it be?" and "A can equal B".

I'm fairly certain they got the point, or maybe not, either way they rejected the tautology.

So, I'm at a loss, some people just want to believe what they believe and there is a lot of them!

I'm starting to dig Avicenna's suggestion for this problem:

"Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned."


I demonstrated the self-contradictory nature of the classic scenarios of "Free-Will". E.g.:

"I deserve reward because I could have done otherwise and the fact that I didn't do otherwise says something about me."

People want to adopt the results of their actions (in this case) as a part of their identity, they are trustworthy, expected to do this sort of thing, but simultaneously claim they could have done otherwise and imply that others don't choose as they do because of their identities (something about them).

Next time, I'm bringing a club and a torch and putting Avicenna's suggestion to work!

A person can be both on fire and burning, A and B, so long as burning does not preclude being on fire.

You might try explaining that the Law of Identity is a linguistic principle, derived from the fact that although we can call the same thing by as many different names as we like (which is why it is possible to have different languages), we cannot call different things by the same name, else will not know which of the things we are intended to call to mind when we hear a name. In other words, unless we accept the Law of Identity, we are free to interpret whatever meaning we wish to another’s words, and so any meaningful communication becomes impossible.

P.S. It is more correctly rendered "A is A", for identity and equality are not the same.

Animus wrote:Dan,

In one of your videos you suggested throwing A=A at relativists.

Recently I tried to argue for Aristotle's Law of Identity, in which I used "A=A" as an example. I stated that the law of identity, or law of non-contradiction states that a thing is itself and not something else.

A few of my debators exclaimed "Why can't it be?" and "A can equal B".

I'm fairly certain they got the point, or maybe not, either way they rejected the tautology.

So, I'm at a loss, some people just want to believe what they believe and there is a lot of them!

All you can do is explain the issue in the clearest possible manner and if they still fail to see it, then so be it. It is not meant to be.

Keep in mind, though, that A=A is one of the subtlest and hardest things to understand and that most people are baffled by it. It is too simple and too fundamental for most people to grasp. So some patience and compassion is needed.

-

You are right David.

I know this. Perhaps I have some animus towards society. I'm frustrated by the criminal system. In ways I find people's attitudes towards crime as vile as the crime itself. They latch onto this mysterious vague notion of morality and will not let it go. There is nothing for them to gain but "security and comfort". Its a lot more about comfort and insecurity. It also has a lot more to do with how people treat people before they wind up in jail. They say "A person can do otherwise" and "Whatever a person does is a reflection of their nature". Thus they justify their cruelty with a contradiction. This is manifest in the society which provides sufficient causation for violence and crime.