Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic


Jacob86
 Share

Recommended Posts

What is the Epistemological ground for believing the universal validity of the basic laws of logic (Identity, Non-Contradiction, Excluded Middle). How does one properly validate that "A is A", universally? Can one know that it is true universally or is it only possible to know it about that which one has perceived? If it is only possible to know it concerning that which has been perceived, then how can one know that "contradictions do not exist"?

I do not question the validity of logic. However, the ground upon which one validates an idea is crucially important and it seems that Objectivists tend to ground the validity of logic in very intellectual dangerous territory-- such that if one takes Objectivist Epistemology seriously (or, at least, that which is professed by many parts of Oist Epistemology), one cannot also consistently take the laws of logic seriously. So, I want to test that out and reveal what is and is not the proper epistemological grounding for the validity of logic.

Many (if not all) Objectivists hold that the validity of logic is grounded in perception (along with all other knowledge). However, if this is the case, one can only know it's validity concerning that which one has perceived. If one can know that it is valid concerning that which has not been perceived, where did this knowledge come from and upon what is it grounded? Is it simply believed as a pragmatic necessity? Is it assumed by whim or by faith? OR is there some other form of validating knowledge aside from perception? I obviously would argue that there is.

I want to ask everyone who participates in this conversation to attempt to accurately understand what is (and is NOT) being said in order to avoid straw men, and that everyone attempt to be CONSISTENT with their professed views.

I predict that most (if not all) objections will be the result of failing to do one of the above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Save the sarcasm. If you are unsure as to the nature of my question, ask for clarification.

I'm aware that Identity is an axiom. I am also aware that the other laws are corollaries. But, what do you mean by "perceptually self-evident"? Does it mean that one only knows it is true in what one has perceived (that would seem to be the plain conclusion)? And if so, how does one know that it is true for that which one has not perceived?

Please directly answer my actual, particular questions or provide a quote which directly answers my actual, particular, questions- rather than randomly recommending material which vaguely dances around the general issue.

Edited by Jacob86
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many (if not all) Objectivists hold that the validity of logic is grounded in perception (along with all other knowledge). However, if this is the case, one can only know it's validity concerning that which one has perceived. If one can know that it is valid concerning that which has not been perceived, where did this knowledge come from and upon what is it grounded? Is it simply believed as a pragmatic necessity? Is it assumed by whim or by faith? OR is there some other form of validating knowledge aside from perception? I obviously would argue that there is.

I wonder if you have a specific example in mind. For instance, "how can you say that frogs don't grow on trees if you haven't personally seen every tree in existence?" In this case, I would agree that perception, common sense, reason, my own observations, and others' observations dictate my beliefs. I wouldn't call it faith, because faith is believing in something that cannot be proven, and I certainly don't believe that frogs grow on trees (there is no reason to).

A is A can be proven using similiar means, where A is anything with a personal identity. "Each entity exists as something specific, its identity is particular, and it cannot exist as something else. An entity can have more than one characteristic, but any characteristic it has is a part of its identity. A car can be both blue and red, but not at the same time or not in the same respect. Whatever portion is blue cannot be red at the same time, in the same way. Half the car can be red, and the other half blue. But the whole car can't be both red and blue. These two traits, blue and red, each have single, particular identities. The concept of identity is important because it makes explicit that reality has a definite nature. Since reality has an identity, it is knowable. Since it exists in a particular way, it has no contradictions."

Edited by Michele Degges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, if this is the case, one can only know it's validity concerning that which one has perceived. If one can know that it is valid concerning that which has not been perceived, where did this knowledge come from and upon what is it grounded?

Direct perception.

I'm not being sarcastic or smart-assed. The knowledge of things not perceivable is grounded in things that are perceivable. Knowledge of things not perceivable and not grounded in things that are perceivable is unjustified and therefore not knowledge, but rather an arbitrary belief.

I would answer more on how the laws of logic are derived, because it's not really the case the the laws of logic are discovered by gazing upon entites in reality (like I look at the table in front of me and go "table is table, therefore A is A, therefore logic" or something) but judging from your past posting it would probably be a waste. My guess is this is a stealth argument trying to prove God? :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha. No. Not a stealth argument for God. Rather, the flaw in Oist Epistemology which I discovered while discussing the issue of God- which flaw, incidentally, I think allows Oists to superficially dignify their atheism. But that's besides the point. I really am concerned about hammering out the Epistemological issue because left un-corrected, it would undermine many great things in Objectivism.

You say that "knowledge of things not perceivable is grounded in thing that are perceivable". How is this justified? I understand that you could have somewhat of a probabilistic justification (i.e. "i've never observed any contradictions and therefore there probably are not any contradictions") but that is VERY different from saying "contradictions do not and can not exist".

AND, how do you know that "knowledge of things not perceivable is grounded in things that are perceivable"? Is that bit of knowledge perceived somewhere?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if you have a specific example in mind. For instance, "how can you say that frogs don't grow on trees if you haven't personally seen every tree in existence?" In this case, I would agree that perception, common sense, reason, my own observations, and others' observations dictate my beliefs. I wouldn't call it faith, because faith is believing in something that cannot be proven, and I certainly don't believe that frogs grow on trees (there is no reason to).

Actually, "A is A" is the main example I'm concerned about. Everything else will flow from that. BTW, I agree that one ought not to believe in something that they have no objective reason for.

A is A can be proven using similiar means, where A is anything with a personal identity. "Each entity exists as something specific, its identity is particular, and it cannot exist as something else. An entity can have more than one characteristic, but any characteristic it has is a part of its identity. A car can be both blue and red, but not at the same time or not in the same respect. Whatever portion is blue cannot be red at the same time, in the same way. Half the car can be red, and the other half blue. But the whole car can't be both red and blue. These two traits, blue and red, each have single, particular identities. The concept of identity is important because it makes explicit that reality has a definite nature. Since reality has an identity, it is knowable. Since it exists in a particular way, it has no contradictions."

What do you mean by "similar means"? I agree with everything in the quote about the law of Identity and it's application to things. But I want to know how an Objectivist justifies their belief that "A is A" universally; that contradictions do not and cannot exist. Is this belief rooted solely in perception? And if so, why ought it not be restrained to that which has been perceived?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, "A is A" is the main example I'm concerned about. Everything else will flow from that. BTW, I agree that one ought not to believe in something that they have no objective reason for.

What do you mean by "similar means"? I agree with everything in the quote about the law of Identity and it's application to things. But I want to know how an Objectivist justifies their belief that "A is A" universally; that contradictions do not and cannot exist. Is this belief rooted solely in perception? And if so, why ought it not be restrained to that which has been perceived?

Okay, I see what you're saying.. something like, "It is only an assumption that contradictions cannot exist. Just because they never have, doesn't mean they never will."

I suppose you cannot know for sure, just as you can't know that the sun will not come up tomorrow. But because of all the reasons I listed "perception, common sense, reason, my own observations, and others' observations," you can be pretty certain the sun will in fact come up tomorrow. If I'm not mistaken, the only way the law of identity has been previously proven is by using examples.. things that are different in any way cannot be the same. Apple 1 might look identical and weigh the same as apple 2, but it may have more seeds, or more water inside of it than Apple 1.

I would say that contradictions don't exist can also be proven by using examples. It's impossible for the sun to rise and fall tomorrow at exactly 8:00. Of course it's physically impossible, but based on "perception, common sense, reason, my own observations, and others' observations," it would be silly to suggest that this is possible. Whether the sun will ever rise and fall at exactly 8:00 is the question that I think you are getting at. ie: "How can we know that contradictions cannot ever exist?" My only answer would be that there's no objective reason, as you said, to think otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the Epistemological ground for believing the universal validity of the basic laws of logic (Identity, Non-Contradiction, Excluded Middle). How does one properly validate that "A is A", universally? Can one know that it is true universally or is it only possible to know it about that which one has perceived? If it is only possible to know it concerning that which has been perceived, then how can one know that "contradictions do not exist"?

I do not question the validity of logic. However, the ground upon which one validates an idea is crucially important and it seems that Objectivists tend to ground the validity of logic in very intellectual dangerous territory-- such that if one takes Objectivist Epistemology seriously (or, at least, that which is professed by many parts of Oist Epistemology), one cannot also consistently take the laws of logic seriously. So, I want to test that out and reveal what is and is not the proper epistemological grounding for the validity of logic.

Many (if not all) Objectivists hold that the validity of logic is grounded in perception (along with all other knowledge). However, if this is the case, one can only know it's validity concerning that which one has perceived. If one can know that it is valid concerning that which has not been perceived, where did this knowledge come from and upon what is it grounded? Is it simply believed as a pragmatic necessity? Is it assumed by whim or by faith? OR is there some other form of validating knowledge aside from perception? I obviously would argue that there is.

I want to ask everyone who participates in this conversation to attempt to accurately understand what is (and is NOT) being said in order to avoid straw men, and that everyone attempt to be CONSISTENT with their professed views.

I predict that most (if not all) objections will be the result of failing to do one of the above.

You say that "knowledge of things not perceivable is grounded in thing that are perceivable". How is this justified? I understand that you could have somewhat of a probabilistic justification (i.e. "i've never observed any contradictions and therefore there probably are not any contradictions") but that is VERY different from saying "contradictions do not and can not exist".

AND, how do you know that "knowledge of things not perceivable is grounded in things that are perceivable"? Is that bit of knowledge perceived somewhere?

How do you know that the "validity of logic, which you do not question" is applicable to this conversation, which you have not perceived yet? Is that bit of knowledge perceived somewhere?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For that matter, how do you know that any argument we give you is valid? Maybe you have not perceived how it isnt, so nothing we could say could be assumed to be true? ;)

Whooops, Dreamweaver already kind of asked this. Oh well!

Edited by Prometheus98876
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you say that the sun not rising at the right time is physically possible, you mean that there is a set of circumstances in which real identifiable things interact with eachother, and that is the result. You aren't saying that it's possible that the universe is actually Earth-centered and the sun is a giant glowing pineapple which dances across the sky. Why not? And, for that matter, aksdfbhei fieruhkj sjghgk kgj g g gg g kjsdhnkf oje ?

Don't want to play along with my sarcasm? Describe a thing which is not itself. Knowledge has to be integrated with everything that is, not anything that isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I don't take this seriously, it's because I could go through a billion billion years of a happy life with my epistemology and never be confronted by negative consequences for failing to consider the arbitrary or anything that doesn't exist. Can you say the same about the reciprocal?

I won't talk about anti-concepts, pretending to be privy to some secret knowledge of what they are, as though they could be something. Spell out the thing which a consideration of the sum of all human knowledge and all viable propositions is failing to prepare me for? Is it the afterlife? Are we in the matrix? You should know that the matrix works backwards: if you click your heels together three times and say "There is a spoon," everything comes into focus and you enter the real world just in time to dodge the traffic you were impeding during your dream.

Nothing imagined can interact with anything that is and change the identity of anything or the outcome of any event, so you have to figure out what the events and identitiess are in order to predict them and use them to your advantage. If the model works, you gain knowledge, in broad context, without a shadow of a faith. It's not pragmatic, in the traditional sense, because you don't get any blissful ignorance out of it and you don't get to dodge any principles or truth.

Edited by DanLane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AND, how do you know that "knowledge of things not perceivable is grounded in things that are perceivable"? Is that bit of knowledge perceived somewhere?

Why yes, it's called direct realism and the objectivist theory of concepts. I know, weird right? I hear there's this book on Amazon.com even... Maybe you should get two copies, one for you and one for your buddy Alvin Plantinga. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the exception of 2046 and possibly mdegges, no other responders to this thread seem to have fully read or understood my original post and the whole point of the thread- particularly the following paragraph:

"I do not question the validity of logic. However, the ground upon which one validates an idea is crucially important and it seems that Objectivists tend to ground the validity of logic in very intellectual dangerous territory-- such that if one takes Objectivist Epistemology seriously (or, at least, that which is professed by many parts of Oist Epistemology), one cannot also consistently take the laws of logic seriously. So, I want to test that out and reveal what is and is not the proper epistemological grounding for the validity of logic."

Now, if that is difficult to understand, ask clarifying questions. But if you don't understand my position and the intent of my post, don't come out guns-slinging at ridiculous straw men that have nothing to do with anything that I've said.

The inability/refusal to follow an objective line of reasoning among people on a philosophy forum is very frustrating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I see what you're saying.. something like, "It is only an assumption that contradictions cannot exist. Just because they never have, doesn't mean they never will."

Actually, I am saying that something like that is the best one can do using the Objectivist reasoning (the belief that logic is grounded in perception)- IF they are consistent. I, of course, disagree because I realize that logic must have a grounding which allows it to be certainly true at all times and in all situations.

I suppose you cannot know for sure, just as you can't know that the sun will not come up tomorrow. But because of all the reasons I listed "perception, common sense, reason, my own observations, and others' observations," you can be pretty certain the sun will in fact come up tomorrow. If I'm not mistaken, the only way the law of identity has been previously proven is by using examples.. things that are different in any way cannot be the same. Apple 1 might look identical and weigh the same as apple 2, but it may have more seeds, or more water inside of it than Apple 1.

I would say that contradictions don't exist can also be proven by using examples. It's impossible for the sun to rise and fall tomorrow at exactly 8:00. Of course it's physically impossible, but based on "perception, common sense, reason, my own observations, and others' observations," it would be silly to suggest that this is possible. Whether the sun will ever rise and fall at exactly 8:00 is the question that I think you are getting at. ie: "How can we know that contradictions cannot ever exist?" My only answer would be that there's no objective reason, as you said, to think otherwise.

Under this reasoning, the most one could say with certainty is "contradictions most likely do not exist". But, as I stated in my OP, that is very different from saying "contradictions do not and cannot exist"-- which is a necessary assumption to knowing anything. If contradictions are even possible, then one cannot know that anything is "A" and not "non-A" at the same time and same relationship. Every bit of human knowledge assumes that "A is A" is universally valid. If "A is A" is not universally valid, then human knowledge (conceptual knowledge) is impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why yes, it's called direct realism and the objectivist theory of concepts. I know, weird right? I hear there's this book on Amazon.com even... Maybe you should get two copies, one for you and one for your buddy Alvin Plantinga. :)

I've heard of Plantiga but I am not familiar with any of his work or ideas. I've also read ITOE (I'm assuming that is what you are referring to) and don't recall coming across "direct realism". In fact, I started another thread asking about the difference between Objectivism & Nominalism (the opposite of realism) because they seem to be saying the same things.

Please explain, though, how one can know "A is A" about the unperceived based in that which has been perceived. I know that the "objectivist theory of concepts" says you can, but I want to get into the details and figure out how and why- because I suspect that objectivists are simply cheating their own system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm not gonna do your homework for you and spoon feed you ITOE, wtf? There's no fancy tricks involved, it's really just common sense. In order for reason to work, it requires a framework upon which the investigation can proceed. Simply open your eyes and ears and believe what is in front of you. There is no reason whatsoever to question the validity of the external world or the validity of the law of identity. These are self-evident and do not require justification beyond themselves. The framework necessary for rational investigation cannot itself be rationally investigated the same way. It is impossible to infer their validity from anything beyond themselves, and if you tried to, then reason, logic, and all of philosophy is nonsense (see David Hume for details.)

We can know about things beyond the directly perceivable because of the validity of the senses, Rand's theory of concepts, and the validity of induction. This is a direct realist account of foundationalism, not to be confused with classical (Cartesian) foundationalism, so your above arguments about not being able to justify itself, either with itself or with something beyond itself, doesn't work (see David Kelley for details.) Reason is substantive and justified through experience, just as the laws of logic are discovered through experience (as in Aristotle.) If you are confused, try reading OPAR chapters 1 through 4. Take your own advice about not ignoring other people's work.

As far as the difference between nominalism and objectivism, nominalism says that there is no mind-indepent relation between concept and particulars, whereas objectivism (which despite what Rand says is a kind of conceptualism as far as I can tell) says that there is a real relation between the particulars (the axes of measurement of their characteristics), but not (as in conceptual realism) a separate existing essence or universal either in particulars themselves or in heaven. It's a psychological abstractionist account of the meaning of universals, and it includes concepts of consciousness, such as "knowledge" and all the normative epistemic root concepts, such as "fact," "belief," "truth," "justification," etc. all of which are gained inductively via abstraction and measurement omission in reality via actual experience and interacting with the external world.

If you wanna take down this kind of foundationalism, you have to take down the validity of the senses, Rand's theory of concepts, and the validity of induction without undercutting yourself and collapsing into solipsism and skepticism. Which means you have to use mysticism (e.g. Plato.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you say that the sun not rising at the right time is physically possible, you mean that there is a set of circumstances in which real identifiable things interact with eachother, and that is the result. You aren't saying that it's possible that the universe is actually Earth-centered and the sun is a giant glowing pineapple which dances across the sky. Why not? And, for that matter, aksdfbhei fieruhkj sjghgk kgj g g gg g kjsdhnkf oje ?

Uhh, what? I said it's impossible for the sun to rise and fall at the exact same time. This is just an example of a contradiction. Sure, I could have also used any other circumstance: frogs growing on trees, the sun becoming rainbow-colored, your own example, etc. But since they are all contradictions, all of them support the same claim.

Edited by Michele Degges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a different thread from many years ago a similar question was asked, but the questioner had a much better grasp of what exactly he was asking.

I imagine the resolution my question is a simple matter, but it still eludes me. I have reviewed OPAR again, read some Aristotle, and read about logical and mathematical axioms, to no avail. Assistance here would be greatly appreciated.

Following OPAR, and validating the axioms, existence comes first. This makes sense to me. The part that gets me is the use of perception (the self-evident) as validation of axioms, before perception (validity of the senses) itself has been validated.

The specific question then is: Why can I rely on perception to validate existence before, hierarchically, perception has been validated?

I suspect the nature of axioms, as opposed to proofs, holds the answer.

Validating an axiom does not somehow "legitimize" the axiom. Validation is a check on knowledge, not the final act of acquiring knowledge.

Our basic means of knowledge is perception, whether or not it has been philosophically validated. In fact, all validation is from the senses - even the validation of sense-perception, so if we had to validate the senses before we could validate them, philosophy would go somewhat circular.

Validation is a kind of conscious recognition of how one arrives at a concept and why it is true, a sort of retracing one's steps. But you've already walked those steps once, in grasping the relevant concepts the first time around, if only implicitly.

The fact of the matter is that we do not deduce one axiom from another; the reason they are axioms is that they identify a primary aspect of reality and, of necessity, are assumed or contained in what follows. So the axiom "existence exists" does not depend upon "the validity of the senses" for it to be an axiom, and one implicitly uses the axiom of existence when validating the senses, and one implicitly uses the senses when validating existence. In that sense there is no prescribed order by which the axioms must be validated, though, as mentioned previously, there is a hierarchy that one can more or less respect when making a systematic presentation of the philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhh, what? I said it's impossible for the sun to rise and fall at the exact same time. This is just an example of a contradiction. Sure, I could have also used any other circumstance: frogs growing on trees, the sun becoming rainbow-colored, your own example, etc. But since they are all contradictions, all of them support the same claim.

Misread what you were saying earlier. I kind of skimmed over that part, assuming it would fit in with the rest of your points, which it doesn't. So you're saying that contradictions could potentially exist, it's just that they don't exist based on anything that you have percieved? If you percieve something of a certain nature and conceptalize it, you know that nothing subsumed by that concept is contradictory. Even the elements that haven't been directly accounted for. The sun is one particular object of a known mass. If it were to be in two places at once, it would have to be redefined as something else. It would not be itself and not itself, it would be something previously unknown, with the attribute of being able to be in two places at once. Not a contradiction. As I was trying to say before, you can't even name something contradictory or picture it existing. Nobody can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Misread what you were saying earlier. I kind of skimmed over that part, assuming it would fit in with the rest of your points, which it doesn't. So you're saying that contradictions could potentially exist, it's just that they don't exist based on anything that you have percieved? If you percieve something of a certain nature and conceptalize it, you know that nothing subsumed by that concept is contradictory. Even the elements that haven't been directly accounted for. The sun is one particular object of a known mass. If it were to be in two places at once, it would have to be redefined as something else. It would not be itself and not itself, it would be something previously unknown, with the attribute of being able to be in two places at once. Not a contradiction. As I was trying to say before, you can't even name something contradictory or picture it existing. Nobody can.

Thanks for your thorough explanation.

My point was just to use a hypothetical example of a contradiction to explain that contradictions do not exist. The OP agreed, but still asked how you can be sure that contradictions will never exist in the future. I think you have certainly proven that the law of identity prevents contradictions from existing at all. And since the law of identity has been proven (using direct perception), then there can be no question about past, present, or future-contradictions. The question that sprang up for me during this discussion (and I think this was also the OP's question) was about the possibility of future-contradictions. I believe I see that these cannot realistically exist at all -- ("If the sun were to be in two places at once, it would have to be redefined as something else.")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm not gonna do your homework for you and spoon feed you ITOE, wtf? There's no fancy tricks involved, it's really just common sense. In order for reason to work, it requires a framework upon which the investigation can proceed. Simply open your eyes and ears and believe what is in front of you. There is no reason whatsoever to question the validity of the external world or the validity of the law of identity. These are self-evident and do not require justification beyond themselves. The framework necessary for rational investigation cannot itself be rationally investigated the same way. It is impossible to infer their validity from anything beyond themselves, and if you tried to, then reason, logic, and all of philosophy is nonsense (see David Hume for details.)

If I could sit down and ask Rand questions about ITOE, I would. However, I can't, so I'm here. ;)

Again, I am NOT questioning the validity of the law of identity. I am questioning YOUR ground for believing in it's validity. There's a difference.

My ground for its validity is logical necessity- the fact that it cannot not be true, that it cannot be consistently doubted or argued against.

Your (Oism in general) ground is that it is evident in perception.

My problem with the Oist position is that IF it were true, then we could only know that the law of identity holds for that which has been perceived and we would have no way of knowing that it applies to that which has not been perceived.

We can know about things beyond the directly perceivable because of the validity of the senses, Rand's theory of concepts, and the validity of induction.

And what is it in any of those three that gives you information about the unperceived? I know Rand's theory of concepts claims that a concept can be applied to any and all concretes which fit into it, but this begs the question. HOW does one know from what they have perceived that x (the law of identity for instance) can be applied to that which has not been perceived?

Reason is substantive and justified through experience, just as the laws of logic are discovered through experience (as in Aristotle.) If you are confused, try reading OPAR chapters 1 through 4. Take your own advice about not ignoring other people's work.

Yes, knowledge is DISCOVERED through experience- but it is not always validated by experience. If it were, all knowledge would be subjective- based solely in an individual's experience. Think about how you DISCOVERED that 2+2=4 vs. why you know that 2+2=4 is valid. Your discovery of it probably involved gradually adding random things together (mixed with instruction from a teacher or something) while the reason you know that it is true, universally, is because you understand that it must be so. If you based the validity of it in your early childhood experience, then you would be treating it as a subjective belief rather than an objective mathematical fact.

As far as the difference between nominalism and objectivism, nominalism says that there is no mind-indepent relation between concept and particulars, whereas objectivism (which despite what Rand says is a kind of conceptualism as far as I can tell) says that there is a real relation between the particulars (the axes of measurement of their characteristics), but not (as in conceptual realism) a separate existing essence or universal either in particulars themselves or in heaven. It's a psychological abstractionist account of the meaning of universals, and it includes concepts of consciousness, such as "knowledge" and all the normative epistemic root concepts, such as "fact," "belief," "truth," "justification," etc. all of which are gained inductively via abstraction and measurement omission in reality via actual experience and interacting with the external world.

I'd rather pick that up in the thread on Objectivism vs Nominalism, if you don't mind.

If you wanna take down this kind of foundationalism, you have to take down the validity of the senses, Rand's theory of concepts, and the validity of induction without undercutting yourself and collapsing into solipsism and skepticism. Which means you have to use mysticism (e.g. Plato.)

It is not that I want to "take down" any of the above. Rather, I am arguing that they take themselves down (in due time) without acknowledging the vital role of logical necessity in addition to the others. Without accepting the epistemological validity logical necessity, one cannot consistently hold to the law of identity or to reason in general. Those who attempt to hold to the latter apart from the former, have no grounding to the latter and therefore only believe in it by virtue of some sort of pragmatic necessity or blind faith or subjective personal experience- none of which is a safe grounding for logic & reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All knowledge, including the knowledge of the law of identity, ultimately comes from perception. All knowledge is held epistemologically, traceable ultimately to the evidence of the senses. A contradiction is an epistemological error, where the proposition cannot be properly related back to its perceptual referents via a properly validated process of cognition It is the identity of the existents, via a process of cognition performed by consciousness that establishes the identification of the existents.

Consciousness is identification. It seeks to answer the question: What is the identity of the object that I am aware of? The law of identity is an epistemological recognition (identification) that the existent is primary, that existents are the referents upon which the epistemological process of identification is built. At the perceptual level, the concept is an integration that takes place when you notice a similarity of two or more existents, a process which is completed when it has been assigned a word, which then serves as a single mental concrete (or entity, if you will). Using the newly created concrete you can state: By this (word), I mean that (entity/existent). The entity/existent is the identity, the fact referenced by the process of identification performed by consciousness. This is the basic formation of a concept of entity. The process is similar for concepts of attributes, actions, relations, quantities, etc.

The process can take into consideration any of these perceptual level terms look for similarities within them. This lays the groundwork for the process of abstracting abstractions from abstractions.

To confirm the validity of a word, or the truth of a proposition – is to demonstrate that the process of identification utilized by consciousness can be reduced (to reverse engineer or reconstruct the essential elements of the process) back to the referents that serve as the basis or foundation or identity, without contradiction. To state that contradictions do not exist in reality is a recognition that the law of identity is grasped conceptually, a recognition of the fact that existence is what it is, a recognition of the fact that existence exists, a recognition of the fact that to exist is to be something, a recognition of the fact that to be something is what, in fact, identity is.

Edited to set font size.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...