
Disproving the Laws of Thought 1/3: The Law of Identity - JRandem
https://www.jrandem.com/blog/disproving-the-laws-of-thought-13-the-law-of-identity
======
dmfdmf
This is crudely circular; the concept "proof" presupposes identity.

The Law of Identity is not "proved" (nor disproved) but validated. You used
the Law of Identity throughout your blog post, you cannot escape it. Any
argument or claim to knowledge includes identity as a presupposition (even
arguments denying it) and once you realize this, that is the validation. It is
an axiom.

------
JRandem
Yes

The concept "Proof" presupposes identity/definition.

But words, do not equate to their references, which remain undefined, even if
we define (identify) symbols for them.

I should probably mention, that "Proof" remains at the Realm of Conceptions at
the Third-Order, and that proofs can only be utilized from 3 and up. (In the
Abstraction Scheme utilized in the blog post)

2 Represents a Label or A Word, just a single term.

1 Represents [] or 'Feelings' 'Sensations' which we cannot talk about or
actually identify, and your quite right that we cannot 'Prove' at this level
so your comment 'is' correct.

But what i've stated 'is' still valid, if you look beyond conceptions and
words.

Anyhow thank you for mentioning this

~~~
dmfdmf
>But what I've stated 'is' still valid, if you look beyond conceptions and
words.

No, it is not valid and you know it. Putting scare quotes around "is" is an
admission that you are stealing that concept while denying it. If you are
consistent you'd stop using "is" (scare quotes or not) but then your essay
would clearly be incomprehensible non-sense which _it is_ anyway.

If you are honest you'd take a step back and admit you have reached a dead-end
in your thinking.

~~~
JRandem
Yes, 'Disproof' does not apply, as mentioned, it would be about
validation/invalidation. Should definitely phrase this differently then with
'is'.

Okei, we have these facts. An 'actual object' does not equate to a term for
it. To use what was in the blog post (which, will be restated :)

The term chair does not equate to the actual underlying objective process/es
termed chair.

Stating that 'a chair is a chair' is neither true nor false, because we cannot
talk about the actual underlying processes only describe them with terms (as
nothing can be it's own sign).

And you're correct in that we cannot use a 'proof' or 'disproof' in relation
to that. They would signify conceptions and as you've said the Law of Identity
enters.

Do you have any suggestion for how one might rephrase this with greater
coherency? It will be most welcome.

As 'proof' clearly belongs to conceptions, and it is not valid in relation to
this, as you mentioned.

The thinking is coherent, but how does one state this properly. Or succinctly.

If we say that "A chair is a chair" then ask if a chair is the Word chair?

We get a No, "the chair is not the word chair", or Yes, "the chair is the word
chair" which would clearly be delusional, the basis for many mental illnesses,
confusing a Word with a 'Thing'. (Ascribing objective existence and values to
terms)

Then "a chair is not a chair" but since "a chair is a chair" we are at an
impasse.

Would you say this is a valid outcome? Or invalid? Or something else?

Thank you i appreciate your feedback

