Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 29, 2023 6:28:39 GMT
If x lasts or keeps being itself (being x) we say that x is identical to x. Or in other words, if x is identical to x, then all what x is x is.
What about contradictions? If we want to be certain that x and non-x (it's opposite) cannot co-exist, we must add that it depends on under which respect we aim it. There's an addition to this law that only for each respect x cannot co-exist with non-x. To reformulate it will be: if R is a respect, then for each R x and non-x are not the same. In other words, no way to remove outer reasons from x and non-x.
Another story is the law of identity. In it x can rely on itself solely, without any additional relations. In the law of contradiction there are outer reasons or respects; there are no any for the law of identity. But as soon as logic is what relies only upon itself, the law of contradictions is fuzzy, and vaguely logical.
What about contradictions? If we want to be certain that x and non-x (it's opposite) cannot co-exist, we must add that it depends on under which respect we aim it. There's an addition to this law that only for each respect x cannot co-exist with non-x. To reformulate it will be: if R is a respect, then for each R x and non-x are not the same. In other words, no way to remove outer reasons from x and non-x.
Another story is the law of identity. In it x can rely on itself solely, without any additional relations. In the law of contradiction there are outer reasons or respects; there are no any for the law of identity. But as soon as logic is what relies only upon itself, the law of contradictions is fuzzy, and vaguely logical.