Frank, I understand that. I would appreciate some constructive discussion, though. I posted the original message two days ago, and there is no discussion about these topics, as if I killed the thread. Do I have such a bad influence? I realize now that it’s very important for me to understand this metaphysics before I go on to argue on anything else. It’s crucial. This is a collective effort to expand our thinking. So, as a catalyst and a stimulus dosage, I offer to share a controversy with you. I am “sacrificing myself” for the sake of Reason. And Reason hates this, as you know. I am going to do something I know I am going to regret: I am going to do something useless and pointless. Even though I agree and do not question the premise of Reason, the main law of logic, A is A, I am going to go against Reason itself for just a sake of any or some sort of collaborative discussion, if any is possible. My premise: do anything to stimulate Reason. Shock it, tickle it - anything. Just not to kill it (hopefully). Hey, if John Galt was tortured without any damage to his body, why can’t we do the same thing here? It may have been good for Galt, it may be good for us as well, no? This is especially directed at Harrison: what I am going to do is purely for emotional excitement of the Reason. Yes, it is trivial. Yes, it is stupid and self-contradictory. But why not, if it’s fun, right? Ok then, here goes the volcano:
Once an axiom is questioned, it no longer serves as an axiom for everyone. And if an axiom is not for everyone, it no longer is an axiom. For example, consider this question more fully: if one can prove that “A is A” can be rationally questioned, would it imply that it is not necessary for it to be an axiom for everyone? Read the following only if you are interested in exploring this question. Otherwise, ignore it.
A is A?
Semantically speaking, A is A. It is true on paper, true in inorganic sciences, true for a robot. That is, it is formally or objectively true. It is ultimately the axiom to justify the virtue of selfishness and the whole philosophy of Objectivism, but I am going to show that this axiom is actually not adequate to justify your philosophy.
However, A is not A in the physical reality of an organic body. No two persons or organic entities are alike in all respects. There will always be differences, however small and seemingly trivial. The way to show it is to apply our reality, in which we live–not merely the man-made that we experience, but a true natural reality–to the statement “A is A.” First differentiation that comes to mind is that the left A is different by position from the right A. The second is that the first A is different from the second A by the exact time interval when they were each typed and applied. Third, the perception of A applies only to an A, not necessarily to a B or something else, because of linguistic constrains. A “savage” would view it differently. And fourth, physical make up of letters, depending on media constraints (electronic or otherwise) has different constituent types (yes, electrons are different from each other too).
I realize that these locational, temporal, perceptual, and physical restrictions may be considered trivialities, but there is enough evidence to suggest that we do not understand reality completely as we learn new and surprising things about it all the time. For example, a westerner would accept that statement, but some tribe of people from Africa (I think one of the Bantu family) has a different linguistic and cultural background and understands nouns eventially (as force or be-ing) rather than discreetly (as a concrete entity), so even when translated correctly and read, they will still understand it differently. It’s the basic conflict between the West and the East, and neither the former culture nor the latter are superior. “Savages,” as Objectivists call them, are people and some are realists also. Humans are various and neither is better than another in all respects. If someone is smarter than a “savage,” it does not mean that the “savage” is not a human being. So, what I am basically arguing for is that the statement “A is A” is true for some instances/individuals but incomplete for others. It is the conflict between the exclusive and the inclusive, the partial and the general, the two-valued and the many-valued logics.
In Rhetoric, Aristotle said: “all our actions have a contingent character; hardly any of them are determined by necessity” (Bizzell, Patricia and Bruce Herzberg, eds. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. 2nd ed. New York: Bedford, 2001, p. 183). Hence you cannot say that all your actions are determined by your logic, as A is not necessarily A in real life, in actuality. Your competence does not necessarily equal your performance - the two are different. Ideas and matter are not the same, even though inseparable. Also compare Aristotle’s "[a]nd to change is also pleasant: change means an approach to nature, whereas invariable repetition of anything causes the excessive prolongation of a settled condition: therefore, says the poet, ‘Change is in all things sweet.’ " (ibid. 204) to Rand’s view on change from The Fountainhead: “I’ve always thought that a feeling which changes never existed in the first place.” However, on a second look, “A is A” does not reflect reality in neither general nor partial manner, and since reality can be considered to be about the details, “A is A” can be shown not to apply.
Even though Aristotle was wrong in some things and right in his logic, there are a lot of additions that had been made to his laws of logic. Let’s consider many-valued logic, in which we can have 3 (e.g., “true”, “false”, and “unknown”) or more values ad infinitum. It was discovered in 1920 while Ayn Rand was still developing her two-valued philosophy. Does it conflict with the law of identity? No, but the law of identity with an excluded middle conflicts with it. The many-valued logic has shown three nuances or details from our reality to be reflected in logic: possibility, necessity, and probability. In other words, over the period of over two thousand years of progress in thoughts since Aristotle, “A is A” can be additionally differentiated into “A is possibly A,” “A is necessarily A,” or “A is probably A.” For example, let’s consider A to be one of two people, John and Bill. They are both human beings, so they could fit into the category or a logical form of A for a human being, right? However, we know that “A is not A” because John is not Bill. By applying many-valued logic and looking at the composition of John and Bill, we can say that some of John’s composition is possibly Bill’s composition, or it’s probably or necessary in some respects. Even this logic won’t apply to the actuality, though, since we are applying it to subrealities of organs, cells, molecules, etc. Logic does not reflect reality perfectly. It is only in the mind, where it is complete, not outside of it.
What you consider good, such as food, and evil, such as poison, is another example of “black-or-white” logical fallacy. How do you battle poison when it’s already in your blood flow, such as after a venomous snake’s bite? You combat it with poison. Poison can be an anti-venom when applied properly and in small doses. This is called a homeopathic medicine, and it has saved lives. “Poison has allowed much progress in branches [sic], toxicology, and technology, among other sciences” and “Poisons are most often applied in industry, agriculture and other uses for other reasons than their toxicity” (from two Wikipedia articles). And do you really think that eating a lot of food would prolong your life? Not really. For example, read about Paul Bragg and his book The Miracle of Fasting: Proven Through History for Physical, Mental, and Spiritual Rejuvenation. Diets also save lives and change people for the better. The question should not be what, but how much. The same applies to “A is A,” that is, “how much of A is A”?
Also, in quantum computing, qubits enter a noisy channel and exit it while being entangled. The logic for a qubit is “0” or “1,” when polarized, but both at the same time when non-localized in the channel. How does the law of identity explain that? How does it explain that electrons can be particles or waves? Yes, “A is A” applies in some instances in physics, such as an electron is an electron, but does not apply when we speak about the nature of something, whether reality or electrons. “A is A” is a merely definitional axiom - it is true in some instances and false in others, just as everything else and every other meaning.
Some critics say that Objectivists confuse a notion of “is” versus a romantic “ought.” Aristotle also kept saying that an end is better than the beginning, and if you look at how you consider Life to be an end in itself and Reason as its beginning, then you may know (faultily like Aristotle) that Life is better than Reason. But Reason =/= Life (in the market); Reason -> (causes) Life (in the market). Aristotle admitted that his laws did not apply to future events. How, with only the law of identity, can there be an “ought” then? How can there be both “is” and “ought” at the same time? Another appropriate Aristotle’s quote: “What aims at reality is better than what aims at appearance” (Bizzell 196). So here I see the same confusion as with Chomskyan grammar, which is binary and thus made for robots. Chomsky says that there is a digital (mathematical) infinity in our reality, but there isn’t one - it’s only in our minds. The same thing for “A is A” - the statement can only be true in our minds, but it is not necessary for it to correspond to the actual reality. It is exclusive to Western philosophy, but it is not inclusive or general of the whole humankind. There may be a different way to justify selfishness, one’s mind, and soul, and a new way does not need to depend only on this axiom.