Logic 101: The Law of Identity

I give a brief introduction to the one (i.e the Law of Identity) of the 4 Logical Axioms necessary to gain knowledge.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Law
• of
• Identity
• Philosophy
• Principle
• Axiom
• Logic
• Sufficient
• Reason
• Epistemology
• Ontology
• Rationality
• Excluded
• Middle
• Non
• Contradiction
• Gottfried
• Leibniz
• Bertrand
• Russell
• Newton
• Classical
• Aristotle
• Socrates
• Plato
• LaughingMan0X

[alianchild]

@LaughingMan0X Do you, or do you not, accept the fact that things exist outside your perception?

[LaughingMan0X]

@alianchild

If a proposition isn't meaningful, then I can't say anything meaningful about it (let alone know anything about it).

[alianchild]

@LaughingMan0X I never said anything about meaningful statements. You added the qualifier to it. If a thing exists, then it is what it is. Yes or no?

[LaughingMan0X]

@alianchild

I'm saying that nothing can be meaningful can said about things that are wholesomely unobserved (and just asserting that this is illogical is not an argument).

[alianchild]

@LaughingMan0X So you are saying that everything we do not perceive does not exist. That would be more then just a little illogical.

[LaughingMan0X]

@alianchild

No, the idea of something wholesomely perceived existing seems non-cognitive.

[alianchild]

@LaughingMan0X That is not an answer. Yes or no, is a thing what it is, regardless of perception.

[LaughingMan0X]

@alianchild

I think the proposition that there's a mind independent world (MIW) is unintellgible. It seems to me that to consider a proposition true, it must also be meaningful. But, for a proposition to be meaningful we must have at least one experience of the content of that proposition (this is why words like "Apple" are meaningful, but words like "Blorg" aren't). By definition we cannot experience a MIW; therefore, I don't see a MIW as something meaningfully to postulate.

[alianchild]

@LaughingMan0X I understand that from your description. But you are not answering my question. Is something what it is whether it is perceived or not?

[LaughingMan0X]

@alianchild

"Token's" are instances identical only to themselves at a particular moment in time, types (often) persist over time. So if you look at a river, leave, and look at that river a year later, it is a different token river (because different things are true of it, temporally, atomically, in terms of how its particles are organized, etc) but it's still the same type of thing (a river).