W A Dunkley

There is only one defense of self-sameness, and only one necessary. The axiom is the incontrovertible defense of the claim that self-sameness exists! Any other defense would flow from a false assumption. "The fuzzy notion of self-sameness"??? What PART of "A is A" don't you understand? "Fuzzy notion" is the worst characterization I can imagine. Conversely, it represents the perfection of clarity. I'll have to take the concept "self-sameness" over "entity," for clarity. My concept can be nailed down with perfection because there is nothing else there. The only thing the statement ",A is A" states is identity (and I hate to use the word identity around here because of the confusion, but I am not so arrogant as to rename the first principle of the great philosopher.) "Consistent"? I know a mathematician who will claim that nothing is provable, that what we hold as proved is just social convention. This man's mathematics are consistent, but it has lost its grip on reality and his commitment to "consistency" has been made arbitrary and a hypocrisy. We all agree that existence is the most fundamental fact. But, the assertion of self-sameness is the fundamental ground of knowledge. If its existence is denied, if it is presumed to be contrived concept then one's consistency becomes just as arbitrary as the nihilist mathematician or the mystic who states: " reality and life is an illusionary game that I have decided to play." Does not Ayn Rand show that the basic metaphysical concepts cannot be "consistently" denied. Consider trying to consistently affirm them, while denying self-sameness "free of incontextuality, floating abstractions, and undefined concepts" which is what you claim self-sameness to be. The proof of all her consepts is a statement that you claim states NOTHING! By the way, emotionalism is not the acknowledgment of emotion. The failure to acknowledge emotion, or anything else, we have another word for, and it is not a river in Egypt.

The other words you mention such as "non-contradictoriness" are just new words for "self-sameness." Self-sameness is all the axiom asserts! If you do not deny self-sameness. If you do not deny the actual existence of self-sameness, that it is something. Then I think you might want to reconsider the primacy of identity. Just remember that, the concept of identity embraced in Objectivism (i.e., the specificity of existence)is not being denied, but it is not the concept being discussed. This is a thesis about self-sameness. In regards to the primacy of existence vs. the primacy of consciousness, I sympathize with what is trying to be done, but must question the validity of the argument. Briefly stated, (because my computer is giving me some trouble) Everything that is really something is a part of existence, so how does one claim consciousness to be separate. Consciousness must be subsumed by existence.

Axions are trivialized when the existence of self-sameness is denied. The denial of self-sameness makes the basic facts referred to by axiomatic concepts unprovable, for they would be hinged to reality by nothing but a "floating abstract." "...recognition of the fact that existence consists of different entities. As a step in cognition, grasping that different entities exist is necessarily secondary to grasping that something (existence) exists. It is in this sense that identity cannot be regarded as a primary versus existence". As I have stated, (see The Primacy of Identity and my other posts) I agree, but this is not the fundamental existent thing asserted by the axiom.

OK……everybody relax……..get a paper bag and breathe into it. It is stated that I am “incomprehensible” but the more clear my position becomes, the more it is met with emotionalism! It is stated that I no little or nothing about Objectivism. This is not true. I understand that the fundamental metaphysical concepts of objectivism cannot even be consistently denied. But what consistency is required of the mind that does not acknowledge the existence of self-sameness? What consistency would be required of a world where self-sameness does not exist? If one fails to acknowledge the truth asserted by the statement “a unicorn is a unicorn” then one has lost the truth asserted in the statement “existence exists!” The philosophy conference I made reference to was the Midsouth Philosophy Conference of 2000. I do appreciate those responsible of allowing me to be there, but, the “professional academic” that was to respond the my paper backed out of the conference at the last minute, for undisclosed reasons. You should have seen the unhappy faces when I said the words: “Only a corrupt mind that is divorced from reason will fail to acknowledge that the law of identity must be universally true and all embracing.” But, surely these are words that unite us here! I was truly touched by the fact that a deep, intelligent and courageous question was asked of me from a 14 year old! Since then, I did some browsing of the website. Among others, I discovered a 15 year old who wants to be known as Non-contradictor. This brings me to tears, overwhelmed by emotion. A child faces a world of mysticism, of aggressive stupidity, of corruption, of hatred, of murder, and demand to be called non-contradictor. This is the courage of the Thermopolis and the Alamo raped in the untarnished soul of a child. I am here to insisted that the weapon this child is trying to raze agenced the hordes of evil, is real. It is self-sameness; it is identity! And the almost "incomprehensible" courage of these children is the Objectivism that I know and love, and the only one that I acknowledged. Objectivism ultimately is what there courage and integrity will make it. If anyone would like to try to further discuss the primacy of identity in a meaningful way, I am here and I will remain!

A correction: The young intellectual, tommyedison, is 14, not 13, as I has said. But still, no less amazing!

In the first place, The primacy of identity does not constitute a denial of “the axioms of existence!" But all they prove as axioms (as such) is the existence of identity. The rest that they prove is derived from perception. But again! the validity of perception is grounded in the axiom, not the other way around. My understanding of objectivism is that it would not deny that the statement “A is A” requires no extrincic support. If there is something in your studies, that disputes this, and answers to the questions that I ask, perhaps you can provide a concise presentation. And I got a nice little bridge in Brooklyn for sale, if you do.

Oh! Y-feldblum: You really are putting the cart before the mule. Accepting your premises, for argument, I might respond with a few questions: If perception “validates” the axiom when can we know that perception has proved this axiom? Would one need to perceive what is on the other side of the universe, or for that matter were the socks that were lost in the washer went to, in order to prove that whatever is, concurs with “A is A?” Indeed would not one need omniscience? If it happened that A is not A and perception is not perception, how can this means of “validation” be trusted? Or are we to assume that “perception is perception” is immutable but, the things perceived must be examined before we decide that they are what they are? Why? If these questions could be truly answered to, then there may indeed be no need for the “W A Dunkley Institute,” But, they cannot!

A is A! This statement can never be proven by perception. This statement proves perception! If the statement “A is A” is not acknowledged as self-proving the claim to know anything is lost!!! For if we assume that A might not be A, then even first hand perception becomes dubious. This is why the mystic, who would steal your mind, launch there attacks at this absolute. I was once at an academic conference presenting this thesis and an angry professor came up to me, pointing to the paper, and said: “You can’t prove that A is A. The Ink in that first A is not the same ink as in the second A!” (This is the world your in!) I am here for a better audience with better questions and statements than, “you can’t prove that A is A,” or “I have trouble with the word ‘is’” etc. But your last post is degenerating to same level!

In an age of relativism and nihilism, it is of vital importance to understand what truly is the ground of all knowledge, which is the axiom! This certainly implies that one understands what the axiom is and what it asserts! Recognizing that it asserts the existence of self-sameness, allows you to understand how one’s logic is hinges to reality. There are other reasons, but this is the most fundamentally important one.

“Why speak of things that do not exist?” Because sometimes, it can aid our understanding. Objectivism acknowledges the value of “concepts of method”. (e.g., The term “unreal” has no reference in reality. But the statement, “God is unreal” has meaning. It means this notion of God has no reference to something real. The notion exists, but God does not). Let us not forget in what context that I concocted the now infamous axiom, “God is God.” It was an attempt to isolate precisely what truth and only truth, axioms (all axioms) assert and prove. Using a notion such as god or a unicorn is helpful in this regard. It makes bright minds such as yours (and, I am in no way being “sarcastic)" ask what truth it could possibly assert. The answer is: the existence of self-sameness! “Things that exist are the only things of importance to philosophy and to living person.” The thing that exists that is monumentally and fundamentally important to philosophy is the existence of identity, of self-sameness. I know that I am asking you to reconsider the ideas of a philosophy and a philosopher that you love and admire and respect. I share this love for Ayn Rand and her ideas. All I would ever ask you to love more is the truth. If you do this you will never betray her or her grand ideals.

source source source As I said before, after finding out that there is one in the audience that is only 13, I have vowed to be patient, but you loosen me here little buddy. “God is God, Computer is computer, man is man; these are not axioms.” Are you sure Ayn Rand and Objectivism would agree with this statement? “There is nothing to be realized from this.” What is “realized” from all these statements is the only thing that they assert, the existences of self-sameness. The statements you have given are self proving and do not require extrinsic support. The statements “God is,” “computer is” and “man is,” are contingent statements which would require extrinsic perceptual evidence to prove. If you do not want to interpret “something is” to mean “something is something” then be aware that in doing so, it falls short of being a self-proving statement, not requiring extrinsic support. “There is NO first axiom!” All axioms are first and they are essentially one, all axioms assert the same truth. Please! rething what I have said.

After discovering that apparently one of the people reading The Primacy of Identity, trying to understand and asking intelligent questions is only 13 years old, I am reminded that one should not get to frustrated by misunderstanding. If you have studied what I have said and sincerely do not understand, then there is no evation. There is important meaning, nonetheless, in the ideas that I submit. So I hope that you will continue to think about them and try to make sense of them.

y_fieldblum y_feldblum y_feldblum Again, in the words of Reagan, "there you go again." "The most basic, most readily graspable fact of things is that they are" The primacy of identity is not at swords point with this statement!!! The only "certain aspect" of a thing, without being aware of its existence at all" that I claim to be incontravertably known is that it posesses identity. I don't know what is on the planet to which Mr Speicher would have me banished, but I know what ever is there, it is what it is; it posesses self-sameness. If we do not acknowledge this, any clain to knowledge crumbles.

"A be A" sounds like the Ebonics assertion of identity. Just kidding. I was about to get angry and say read The Primacy of Identity again and don't make me explain it again. However, I looked at your profile and according to it, you are only 13. If this is so, then I am truly impressed. That is an incredibly young age to be grappling with such deep issues. What I am saying is that the law of identity is the supreme law if existence. We do assume that A exists before we formulate the axiom, "A is A." One my assume that God exists and then formulate the axiom "God is God," but all that one has asserted and proved is the existence of identity. Nonetheless, this provides the ground for all else that can be proved. The incontrovertible truth that something exists is grounded in the axiom. Asserting that nothing exist would violate this first principle. I would suggest reading TPOI and my response to other comments again, and you may have to struggle with it for some time. I struggled with this issue for 30+ years and the primacy of identity is the result.

y_feldblum Ayn Rand did not rebut the primacy of identity, because it had not yet been formulated. (And you cannot convince me that she would be quick to cast it aside.) At the risk of sounding like I an evading, I sincerely can't follow what your getting at in this first paragraph. If you can explain to me what I am missing, I will try to respond. I will grant you, I am more of an ideas man that a scholar. Nonetheless, I have read what Rand said about the primacy of existence and I was profoundly influenced. I do not present this thesis to rebut the primacy of existence. I present it as an idea that is inspired by the primacy of existence, but better states the truth that Ayn Rand was playing of the edge of. Metaphorically stated, the primacy of identity is on the tip of the tongue of the primacy of existence. The primacy of identity accepts the theme of the primacy of existence: that the axiom resolves the issue of primacy. It is a clarification of what the axiom asserts and of what it is asserting as primary. As to the compliment, let me say that (other than one slip) I can say no less of you.

This may be an my interpretation, not what she said. However, until you can show me where Ayn Rand said “a thing is not the same as itself,” your complaint rings shallow. (And if you could show me, my towering respect for her would be devastated.) Can’t let you of the hook on that one, can I.

I have given “professional academic,” who specialist in trying to prove that metaphysics is played out and no new ideas are possible, the opportunity to prove their claim that the primacy of identity does not represent a new idea, and they have failed. “Academic philosophers” call it rehashed Parmenides, Objectivism calls it platonic, and laymen call it Objectivism. The primacy of identity does not maintain that “A is A” the same as “A = A.” If you are maintaining that the sameness asserted by the statement “ Rover and spot are the same (i.e., dogs)” is epistemological, then I agree. Rover and spot are different members of the same mentally unified group. Nonetheless, the self-sameness asserted by the statement "rover is rover” is metaphysical! To ask for proof is to ask for proof of the axiom that asserts it. This assertion proves itself!

Existence is everything. Identity as it is defined by Objectivism, refers to the logical truth that specific things exist. It is a logical truth that emerges when the axiom, the fact of self-sameness, is weighed agents the self-evidence, derived from perception, that existence is multifaceted (i.e., A is A and therefore a dog is not a cat, etc.) This however is not the fundamental truth that is asserted by the axiom, the existence of self-sameness. Existence is everything. self-sameness is the fundamental ground of everything.

No! It is (loosely speaking) an assertion of evasion!

The primacy of identity may be regarded as a correction of the primacy of existence, an idea that is profound and meaningful, but flawed.

Must we be so dogmatic as to refuse to see what right before us: ”Things are” by your interpretation, falls short of being an assertion of self-sameness, because it falls short of being an axiom. “A is” is not an axiom unless it is interpreted to mean “a thing is a thing” “God is” is not an axiom; i It is not even true. “God is God” is an axiom and the only truth it asserts is identity! “Something is” is just a more brief way of saying “something is something.” By an other interpretation IT IS NOT AN AXIOM! As I state in The Primacy of Identity, epistemologically speaking existence comes before self-sameness. The notion of a “thing” comes before the immutable truth is formulated, “a thing is itself.” This, nonetheless is not relevant to the metaphysical issue of primacy. Epistemologically, existence may be regarded as a basic fact. Metaphysically speaking however, existence is not a base, it is everything.

I take no offence and my love for Ayn Rand, her philosophy and Objectivist remains. However, it is not I who have appealed to authority when every issue I raise is met with almost plagiarized Objectivist talking points, scarcely relevant to the issue. Your platonic interpretation of self-sameness may be a result of an epistemology that is imposing more on it that is really there. I am not sugesting that Rover posesses dogness, but I am insisting that he possesses self-sameness! Self-sameness is what is described and asserted by the axiom, any axiom. It is the only description; it is a perfect description. This is identity. To make more of self-sameness than this, would indeed make it platonic. Epistemologically speaking the axiom is the absolute. But after this, rather than requesting reality to conform to the accepted method by which we comprehend, it is more fruitful to adopt ones method, with inventiveness, to the demands of reality. All we can expect of reality is to be what it is. When we cease to expect the world to be rational, however, and blame our theoretical inconsistencies on reality, then we become little more than spoilt children masquerading as scientist and philosophers. Metaphysically speaking, I cannot embrace (or to be more precise, I tried to embrace and then had to reject) a metaphysics which states or implies: Existence is everything and then it is not.(?) A thing is not a thing unless it is an "entity." Real is only real, if it is real in an of itself.(???) "A thing is itself", but, a "thing is not the same as itself." (???????) And I hope that I bring this one up in jest, but at the very least, it demonstrates that (some) Objectivism will defend there position dogmatically to the point of evading an incontrovertible truth! This is misplaced loyalty.

This claim is fundamentally absurd, It throws away the foundation that your enemy's, first and foremost, wish to steal from you! but it would be good news for the ones facing punishment for denieing Aristotle's first principle. For all that stands between then and being burned is not being burned (i.e.,non-self-sameness,) is a "reified" concept.

I agree! Identity is something that is a part of everything else. Self-sameness is incomprehensible as anything but a part.

"Things are" is an assertion of self-sameness. To interpret it otherwise would make it no longer be an axiom at all. (which, by the way, is what mystics love to do with "A is A") A standard of comparison? Are you now, like the mystic, demanding extrinsic proof of the axiom! Should I wait and see of scientist can unravel the theoretical mess that is quantum mechanics, and if logician's can decide if "this statement is a lie" is an actual contradiction so I can compare it to "everything is the same as everything?" NO! "everything is the same as everything" is the standard of comparison!