If you have ever had the opportunity to view a coop of chickens, you would know that the pecking order is another absolute. The second peck you observe is always preceded by the first.
Well, of course a whale is absolutely a whale! but our knowledhe of whale-ness depends upon a vast storeroom of knowledge as to what might distinguish mammals with fins from fish. To this extent, whale-ness as A+A sounds somewhat like 'An idiot is someone who doesn’t know what I learned yeasterday".
Not sure what you are getting at with this particular response.
Your reference to “whale-ness” seems to indicate to me you are really thinking of:
a Op A
rather than
A = A
Where in particular, a is not A but a different class of things related somehow (operation Op) to a. So for example, “a” is an existent such as a whale, is related by an Operation Op (say “fits in the definition”, is “consistent with the concept”) to “A” a definition or a concept (in the realm of mental content). In this case a Op A is a relationship between an existent “a” and a concept “A”.
You could then “play” with A and A’, and A’', or whatever, one defining “fish”, another defining “swimming things”, another “whales”. Some of a Op A will be valid others not.
This does not change the fact that
a=a
and
A=A
and the nature of absolutes, which is that the relationships a Op A and a Op A’ are valid or invalid.
If you have ever had the opportunity to view a coop of chickens, you would know that the pecking order is another absolute. The second peck you observe is always preceded by the first.
Fine-- chickens are genetically pre-rigged, wolves are not. OTH, crows and bees learn, too. The issue is imposing a genetic order on behavior that closely resembles human pecking orders, which aren’t natural.
Not sure what you are getting at with this particular response.
Your reference to “whale-ness” seems to indicate to me you are really thinking of:
a Op A
rather than
A = A
Where in particular, a is not A but a different class of things related somehow (operation Op) to a. So for example, “a” is an existent such as a whale, is related by an Operation Op (say “fits in the definition”, is “consistent with the concept”) to “A” a definition or a concept (in the realm of mental content). In this case a Op A is a relationship between an existent “a” and a concept “A”.
You could then “play” with A and A’, and A’', or whatever, one defining “fish”, another defining “swimming things”, another “whales”. Some of a Op A will be valid others not.
This does not change the fact that
a=a
and
A=A
and the nature of absolutes, which is that the relationships a Op A and a Op A’ are valid or invalid.
The sentence A=A is either a statement of formal logic devoid of any content OR an assertion that things are just what they seem.
My point is that whale-ness is not. Rather, it depends upon a background in biology.
In passing, A=A is also used as a rhetorical comment that says, “I see reality as it is, whereas you do not”.
Frank said:
Fine-- chickens are genetically pre-rigged, wolves are not. OTH, crows and bees learn, too. The issue is imposing a genetic order on behavior that closely resembles human pecking orders, which aren’t natural.
How is it un’natural’ ? Unless you mean “not in the wolves nature”… But the difference here seems to be the same already being bandied with. There is no such thing as “unnatural” in the sense that all there is, is nature. But particular things have a specific nature that is not identical to other existents. The latter is the only sense that would make sense in an attempt to repudiate anthropomorphism of a non human species.
The axioms remind us that everything is what it is. But the knowledge of a particulars qualites-attributes is to be identified conceptually via experience. Axioms are timeless, knowledge of particulars is contextual.
Fine-- chickens are genetically pre-rigged, wolves are not. OTH, crows and bees learn, too. The issue is imposing a genetic order on behavior that closely resembles human pecking orders, which aren’t natural.
While the issue avoided was the absolute contained in “The second peck you observe is always preceded by the first”.
The sentence A=A is either a statement of formal logic devoid of any content OR an assertion that things are just what they seem.
My point is that whale-ness is not. Rather, it depends upon a background in biology.
In passing, A=A is also used as a rhetorical comment that says, “I see reality as it is, whereas you do not”.
Using A=A [sic] as this empty bromide amounts to little more than erecting an superficial construct to try to use as an artificial shield. The stand taken on this axiomatic concept makes known, as Paul Harvey liked to put it, the rest of the story.
Frank said:
How is it un’natural’ ? Unless you mean “not in the wolves nature”… But the difference here seems to be the same already being bandied with. There is no such thing as “unnatural” in the sense that all there is, is nature. But particular things have a specific nature that is not identical to other existents. The latter is the only sense that would make sense in an attempt to repudiate anthropomorphism of a non human species.
The axioms remind us that everything is what it is. But the knowledge of a particulars qualites-attributes is to be identified conceptually via experience. Axioms are timeless, knowledge of particulars is contextual.
Of course, you can say that it’s within the wolves’ nature to make a leadership decision based upon experience, therby passing their criterion down to future generations as ‘wolf culture’.
Be this as it may, the abiove it distinct from saying alpha-ness is pre-programmed, or innate.
If saying something is ‘axiomatic’ reminds you that what is, is, then you’ve failed to establish a viable standard of internal criticism, or assessment of fault.
You’ve likewise failed to establish a viable standard of debate with those whose A’s don’t equal the same as yours.
Of course, you can say that it’s within the wolves’ nature to make a leadership decision based upon experience, therby passing their criterion down to future generations as ‘wolf culture’.
Be this as it may, the abiove it distinct from saying alpha-ness is pre-programmed, or innate.
If saying something is ‘axiomatic’ reminds you that what is, is, then you’ve failed to establish a viable standard of internal criticism, or assessment of fault.
You’ve likewise failed to establish a viable standard of debate with those whose A’s don’t equal the same as yours.
The only standard in a debate, that for it to be a rational debate, is that both sides recognize that the A cant’ change based on either side’s view. A stays the same, it is what it is independent of anything.
1 Like
The only standard in a debate, that for it to be a rational debate, is that both sides recognize that the A cant’ change based on either side’s view. A stays the same, it is what it is independent of anything.
I Agree. to have a debate both sides must be in agreement as to what the A’s really are. But this condition is what nullifies the claim of any particualr debater that A is only what he/she claims it to be at the moment spoken.
I Agree. to have a debate both sides must be in agreement as to what the A’s really are. But this condition is what nullifies the claim of any particualr debater that A is only what he/she claims it to be at the moment spoken.
This condition is not what nullifies the claim of what ‘A’ is, - ‘A’ is simply the object being discussed. The object being discussed is what the object is regardless of what any party claims it to be. In this sense, what ‘A’ is, is the precondition rather than a nullifier. A linguistic agreement is arrived at by coming to a mutual understanding of a concept and the relationship it bears to its referents.
If I am not mistaken the need to even state “A is A” is the complete insanity/irrationalism in some schools which leads to statements such as
“A is not necessarily A”
“A is non-A”
“A is A and A is non-A”
This condition is not what nullifies the claim of what ‘A’ is, - ‘A’ is simply the object being discussed. The object being discussed is what the object is regardless of what any party claims it to be. In this sense, what ‘A’ is, is the precondition rather than a nullifier. A linguistic agreement is arrived at by coming to a mutual understanding of a concept and the relationship it bears to its referents.
I If you have a 'linguistic agreemen’t as to what things are (ie whale is mammal, not fish), then asserting that A=A is redundant.
Logic, on the other hand, assists you in discovering what A’s are by clarification. But again, no clarification is neede if there’s prior agreement.
“A is A” is a symbolic representation of one of the guidelines of logic. It is so good of you to be championing this fundamental law of logic as well.