|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 5, 2022 22:28:03 GMT
1. A=A equivocates to A=P as P is just another way of saying A.
2. P=P equivocates to P=A as A is just another way of saying P.
3. A=A equivocates to P=P if A=P.
4. However, A=A and P=P are both distinctly different expressions of the same phenomenon.
5. As distinctly different expressions they are not the same phenomenon as the expression must equal itself under the laws of identity; yet these different expressions equivocate.
6. Equivocation thus can mean many things and as such is self-negating.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 6, 2022 5:03:41 GMT
This isn't serious, is it?
A=A may be equivocation, or not. If you're claiming that A=A's equivocation is necessary, then you use the law of correspondence in logic implicitly. So, your claim doesn't make any sense. To prove A=A is equivocation the logic laws must be used. Without using them you're not proving anything. A=A is one of the main logic laws.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 11, 2022 23:01:23 GMT
This isn't serious, is it? A=A may be equivocation, or not. If you're claiming that A=A's equivocation is necessary, then you use the law of correspondence in logic implicitly. So, your claim doesn't make any sense. To prove A=A is equivocation the logic laws must be used. Without using them you're not proving anything. A=A is one of the main logic laws. A=A equivocates to an infinite variety of things therefore is subject to equivocation. This infinite variety of things can be expressed as: 1. (A=A), (B=B), (C=C),... 2. (A=B), (A=C), (A=D),... (where B,C,D... are variations of A.) |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 12, 2022 5:47:44 GMT
This isn't serious, is it? A=A may be equivocation, or not. If you're claiming that A=A's equivocation is necessary, then you use the law of correspondence in logic implicitly. So, your claim doesn't make any sense. To prove A=A is equivocation the logic laws must be used. Without using them you're not proving anything. A=A is one of the main logic laws. A=A equivocates to an infinite variety of things therefore is subject to equivocation. This infinite variety of things can be expressed as: 1. (A=A), (B=B), (C=C),... 2. (A=B), (A=C), (A=D),... (where B,C,D... are variations of A.) Ok, but it can be continued in this way: 3. (A=B)=(A=B), (B=C)=(B=C), (C=D)=(C=D)... In all the cases the law of identity is saved. Why? Because the law of identity is not A=A, or B=A, or C=X, etc. All these examples are just particulars or separated elementary examples. Actually, I'd like to agree with you rather, than Plato, but trying to be honest I cannot just skip Plato's theory without criticying it. Plato would object saying that "A=A" is one of particular projections of the total or general "A=A". So, Plato says that for each "A=A" there is a meta A=A, or more higher law. And by this way of argumenting we cannot say that if A=B, then there's no law of correspondence; no, instead we have to look up above - somewhere among the abstractions. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 12, 2022 17:18:29 GMT
A=A equivocates to an infinite variety of things therefore is subject to equivocation. This infinite variety of things can be expressed as: 1. (A=A), (B=B), (C=C),... 2. (A=B), (A=C), (A=D),... (where B,C,D... are variations of A.) Ok, but it can be continued in this way: 3. (A=B)=(A=B), (B=C)=(B=C), (C=D)=(C=D)... In all the cases the law of identity is saved. Why? Because the law of identity is not A=A, or B=A, or C=X, etc. All these examples are just particulars or separated elementary examples. Actually, I'd like to agree with you rather, than Plato, but trying to be honest I cannot just skip Plato's theory without criticying it. Plato would object saying that "A=A" is one of particular projections of the total or general "A=A". So, Plato says that for each "A=A" there is a meta A=A, or more higher law. And by this way of argumenting we cannot say that if A=B, then there's no law of correspondence; no, instead we have to look up above - somewhere among the abstractions. Under (A=B), (A=C), (A=D),... B,C,D... are variations of A. We can see this in the example of two horses. One horse is A, the other horse is B. One horse equals another horse thus A=B; B is just another expression of A. |
|
