DelightfulReality

What a semantic quagmire. I am going to address Lady Lark Inn (Or perhaps, if she's going to reject the axioms of Objectivism, Lady Larkin?) and hopefully in doing so hit on not only the "Law of Identity" question but also the "Perception" question. First, when dealing with Objectivism and philosophy in general, it's a poor idea to try to examine one axiom and ignore others. Remember, axioms are statements which are logically irrefutable, and hence, in a sense, irreducable. I would urge you not to consider the axiom of identity without comsidering BOTH consciousness and existence at the same time... if for no other reason than that it makes the definition and articulation of knowledge claims very difficult. For the purpose of summary, the axioms are as follows: 1) Identity: A=A. 2) Consciousness. 3) Existence: Existence exists. These three axioms are not at all dichotomous (in fact, they all MUST work in perfect, balanced tandem) and therefore could NEVER produce a dualistic, or I guess in this case trilistic (is that a word, lol?) divide bewteen the self, the perceived, and reality. As hunterrose said, "Perceiving reality doesn't involve extending beyond oneself per se, simply an interaction between myself and what is perceived." In other words, consciousness does not *contain* reality, it interacts with it. Nor is your consciousness the thing, particularly, which "contains" you identity; your identity as LadyLarkInn in dependent more on your the amalgam of your conscious/mental, physical, and (for lack of a better term) existential properties. But just what IS identity? As I've said, it's a seemless, non-dichotomous blend between your ohysical being and your mental/conscious being; it is "you qua you", to coin a phrase. One thing which identity is EMPHATICALLY NOT is a mathematical "=" sign. Anyone who's had their logic knows this. I studied logic jointly with a mathematics prof and a philosophy prof, and we were jokingly told the following: "If anyone in this class says 'A equals A' instead of 'A is A' when they see the identity symbol '=', we'll not only take a point off your next test, but you'll have to leave the room! So get it right!" This became a problematic threat when one day the math prof slipped and declared, "Alright, on line 2 we've got A equals A..." (We did indeed make him leave the room.) But I digress. What I mean to say is this: I think everyone here has problematized the statement "A = A" by equivocating a bunch of natural language synonyms with the word "is". Look at all the ways in which we could, if we were being less picky, state that claim in the English language: A is A A equals A A is equivalent to A A is identical to A A means A A is the same as A A is exactly A A replicates A A duplicates A ...etc. ad naseum. As an English major, I'm concerned with style and meaning. But the other half of me, as a philosophy major, is concerned with precision and implicature. I think it's more accurate to say that A = A means "A has the identity of A" instead of "A is identical to A". This may be a very minor quibble, but I'd say that positing identity as an adjective makes the logical value of the sentence vague. So, Evan, you were vague. On the other hand, if you say "A is identical to A *itself*" you properly convey the REFLEXIVE nature of the law A=A. And that works. But I understand why you all were confused. I think you were actually all *meaning* the same thing from the start, but said it in different (and sometimes poor) ways.