The necessary truth of any truth

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

guigus wrote:
2 According to the so-called “principle” of non-contradiction, it cannot be true that “A is A” and also that “A is not A,” so if A conforms to “A is A,” then it cannot conform to “A is not A” - since its being not A would contradict its being A – or “A cannot be not A.”

You're confusing the difference between "cannot" and "is not". If "A" is "A" then "A" is not "not A". You're wrong to say that "A" cannot be "not A". It could be if it wasn't "A". The fact that "A" is "A" isn't necessary.

Although the principle of identity only asserts that "A is A," the principle of non-contradiction asserts that "A is A" and "A is not A" cannot be both true (since, precisely, they contradict each other). So, if "A is A" (principle of identity), then "A cannot be not A" (principle of non-contradiction). The statement "A cannot be not A" does not derive from the principle of identity alone, but from its combination with the principle of non-contradiction. To deny that "A cannot be not A" you must deny the principle of identity (by asserting that "A is not A"), or the principle of non-contradiction (by asserting that "A is A" and "A is not A" can be both true), or both.

Night Ripper wrote:

guigus wrote:
3. According to the so-called “principle” of the excluded middle, either it is true that “A is A” or that “A is not A,” so if A does not conform to “A is not A,” then it must conform to “A is A” - by being A rather than being not A – or “A must be A.”

You're making the same mistake by confusing "must" and "does". If "A" does not conform to "A is not A" then it does conform to "A is A".

The principle of the excluded middle asserts that either "A is A" or "A is not A," so if A does not conform to "A is not A," then it must, meaning it has no other choice than, conform to "A is A." Of course, that's according to the principle of the excluded middle, not according to you. So, to deny that "A must be A" you must deny that "A is A" (identity), or that "A cannot be not A" (non-contradiction), or that either "A is A" or "A is not A" (excluded middle). Which one(s) are you willing to deny?

Night Ripper wrote:

Please address these mistakes and actually defend your usage of "cannot" vs. "is not" and "must" vs. "does".

Please pay attention.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Night Ripper wrote:

guigus wrote:
2 According to the so-called “principle” of non-contradiction, it cannot be true that “A is A” and also that “A is not A,” so if A conforms to “A is A,” then it cannot conform to “A is not A” - since its being not A would contradict its being A – or “A cannot be not A.”

You're confusing the difference between "cannot" and "is not". If "A" is "A" then "A" is not "not A". You're wrong to say that "A" cannot be "not A". It could be if it wasn't "A". The fact that "A" is "A" isn't necessary.

guigus wrote:
3. According to the so-called “principle” of the excluded middle, either it is true that “A is A” or that “A is not A,” so if A does not conform to “A is not A,” then it must conform to “A is A” - by being A rather than being not A – or “A must be A.”

You're making the same mistake by confusing "must" and "does". If "A" does not conform to "A is not A" then it does conform to "A is A".

Please address these mistakes and actually defend your usage of "cannot" vs. "is not" and "must" vs. "does".

Now this is where I came in. It is useless, NR. Even wild horses won't break through this barrier. He is invincible.

That's one of the benefits of being right. You should try.

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
Night Ripper wrote:
guigus wrote:
According to the so-called “principle” of non-contradiction, it cannot be true that “A is A” and also that “A is not A,” so if A conforms to “A is A,” then it cannot conform to “A is not A” - since its being not A would contradict its being A – or “A cannot be not A.”
If "A" is "A" then "A" is not "not A". You're wrong to say that "A" cannot be "not A". It could be if it wasn't "A".
Now this is where I came in. It is useless, NR. Even wild horses won't break through this barrier. He is invincible.
Some points here that require comment:
1) Kennethamy has defined necessity in terms of contradiction, so how can he be supporting Night Ripper's above claim?
2) Night Ripper's you're wrong to say that "A" cannot be "not A". It could be if it wasn't "A", doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. He seems to be saying that A is not-A in the case that A is not A, and as far as I can tell, this means that there is some possible world in which A is not-A and that A and not-A is, thus, possible. As far as I can see, this gets rid of even the trivial necessity of no bachelor is married, as there is a possible world in which a bachelor isn't a bachelor.

There is a further misconception here, and a more disturbing one: when he says that "if 'A' does not conform to 'A is not A' then it does conform to 'A is A,' thus replacing "must" by "does," he shows a misunderstanding of the construct "if [...], then [...]" itself: if that construct was not equivalent to "if [...], then necessarily [...]," then it would be contingent, so tomorrow I could be saying the opposite (that if "A" does not conform to "A is not A" then it does conform to "A is not A") and be totally correct. Necessity just happens to be whatever makes me say tomorrow the same I said yesterday so as to remain correct, which is precisely the meaning of "then" in the construct "if [...], then [...]." As you correctly noticed, he is abandoning not just a classical framework of logic, but logic in general, thus opting to talk nonsense. I hope this is just a (childish) strategy for not admitting he's wrong, which would be soon abandoned.

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Can you please address ughaibu's most recent post (page 15). How can there be a possible world in which A is not-A? What does "A is not-A" (with or without a hyphen) mean? How can a tree not be a tree? I can form a concept of something that is not a tree, or something that might have grown into a tree but did not. But I cannot form a concept of a tree that is not a tree.

Note that kennethamy claims that "A is A" is necessary, but you claim it is contingent.

1 Reply

@ACB,

ACB wrote:

What does "A is not-A" (with or without a hyphen) mean? How can a tree not be a tree?

You need to understand the difference between de dicto and de re. The phrase "de dicto" refers to the word itself and "de re" refers to the thing that the word picks out of the world.

With this is in mind, what would it mean to say "my father isn't necessarily my father"? Well, it could mean that whoever my father is, could also not have been my father. That would be a false claim though, since, by definition, whoever my father is, is my father. That's the de dicto interpretation. However, if we take it to mean that "my father (James) isn't necessarily my father" then it means that my father could have been someone else besides James, maybe Tom, Dick or Harry. That's the de re interpretation.

This is why phrases like "A is A" or "my father is my father" are somewhat ambiguous. Taken as de dicto claims, A is always A since whatever A picks out is identical to itself. However, if we use A to point to the thing itself then anything could have been a different thing. A tree could have been a person or an ice cream bar or anything else, just like my father could have been some stranger on the street.

5 Replies

@Night Ripper,

All it needs is an explanation of what it means when one says "my father is my father." The only difference can be parental or biological; or both. Just claiming such can have different interpretations, but who gives a shite of why?

If anyone says "my father is my father," who will question it? If so, why?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

If anyone says "my father is my father," who will question it? If so, why?

I don't think you're following the discussion. The only thing we are questioning is whether or not "my father is my father" is a necessary truth or a contingent truth. The answer is both, depending on which interpretation you take.

2 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Precisely; so what's with this "discussion?" It doesn't take deep thinking to acknowledge one or the other.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Precisely; so what's with this "discussion?" It doesn't take deep thinking to acknowledge one or the other.

It does for guigus apparently. We've been trying to convince him of this distinction for quite a while. You're welcome to try your luck or you can just continue to be flippant.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
If anyone says "my father is my father," who will question it? If so, why?

I don't think you're following the discussion. The only thing we are questioning is whether or not "my father is my father" is a necessary truth or a contingent truth. The answer is both, depending on which interpretation you take.

If it is a contingent truth, then my father might not have been my father. But could it be true that my father might not have been my father? Could I, with the genes I have, been the son of any other man than my father? In other words, we all agree that that necessarily my father is my father. That is beyond dispute. But you seem to suggesting that it is not (also) true that my father is necessarily my father. But is that true?

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

I'm a flippant kind of guy, so I'll remain - the same.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I'm a flippant kind of guy, so I'll remain - the same.

Good for you.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Could I, with the genes I have, been the son of any other man than my father?

Sure, if your father has an identical twin brother or if by some astronomical coincidence two people not closely related have the same genetic code. Of course, this raises the question of what defines you as you. It seems you think it's ones genes that matter but if you suffer some kind of genetic damage, say, from radiation, are you no longer you? Again, this is ambiguous without distinguishing between the word and the thing the word picks out.

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

ACB wrote:
What does "A is not-A" (with or without a hyphen) mean? How can a tree not be a tree?

You need to understand the difference between de dicto and de re. The phrase "de dicto" refers to the word itself and "de re" refers to the thing that the word picks out of the world.

With this is in mind, what would it mean to say "my father isn't necessarily my father"? Well, it could mean that whoever my father is, could also not have been my father. That would be a false claim though, since, by definition, whoever my father is, is my father. That's the de dicto interpretation. However, if we take it to mean that "my father (James) isn't necessarily my father" then it means that my father could have been someone else besides James, maybe Tom, Dick or Harry. That's the de re interpretation.

This is why phrases like "A is A" or "my father is my father" are somewhat ambiguous. Taken as de dicto claims, A is always A since whatever A picks out is identical to itself. However, if we use A to point to the thing itself then anything could have been a different thing. A tree could have been a person or an ice cream bar or anything else, just like my father could have been some stranger on the street.

In the expression "A is A," the first "A" must mean exactly the same thing as the second "A," since it is "A is A" and not "A is B." So if the first "A" is de dicto, then the second "A" must also be de dicto. If the first "A" were de dicto and the second were de re, then they would be different from each other, so either one would no longer be "A" and "A is A" would become, say, "A is B." But it is "A is A," since either both "A"s are de dicto or both are de re, which is why it is called the principle of identity, rather than the principle of difference.

1 Reply

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

In the expression "A is A," the first "A" must mean exactly the same thing as the second "A," since it is "A is A" and not "A is B."

No, it doesn't.

1. My father (whoever it is) is my father.
2. My father (James) is my father.

These are just two possible versions of "my father is my father". They don't have to be the same de dicto or de re. They can be the same if you so stipulate. If you stipulate (1) then you would be saying something that is a necessary truth (and also trivial). If you stipulate (2) then you would be saying something contingent. My father is James but it could have been Tom, Dick or Harry (or someone else).

2 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

ACB wrote:
What does "A is not-A" (with or without a hyphen) mean? How can a tree not be a tree?

You need to understand the difference between de dicto and de re. The phrase "de dicto" refers to the word itself and "de re" refers to the thing that the word picks out of the world.

With this is in mind, what would it mean to say "my father isn't necessarily my father"? Well, it could mean that whoever my father is, could also not have been my father. That would be a false claim though, since, by definition, whoever my father is, is my father. That's the de dicto interpretation. However, if we take it to mean that "my father (James) isn't necessarily my father" then it means that my father could have been someone else besides James, maybe Tom, Dick or Harry. That's the de re interpretation.

This is why phrases like "A is A" or "my father is my father" are somewhat ambiguous. Taken as de dicto claims, A is always A since whatever A picks out is identical to itself. However, if we use A to point to the thing itself then anything could have been a different thing. A tree could have been a person or an ice cream bar or anything else, just like my father could have been some stranger on the street.

You are confusing "A is A" with "A would have been A." While "is" refers to an actuality, "would have been" refers to a possibility. The expression "A is A" means an actual identity, so the first "A" is identical to itself, by which it must mean the same as itself - either both "A"s are de dicto or both are de re. The word "is" is not in the past or in the future: it is in the present (have you heard about the present?).

1 Reply

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

(have you heard about the present?).

Have you heard about not being a sarcastic douche?

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

guigus wrote:
In the expression "A is A," the first "A" must mean exactly the same thing as the second "A," since it is "A is A" and not "A is B."

No, it doesn't.

1. My father (whoever it is) is my father.
2. My father (James) is my father.

These are just two possible versions of "my father is my father". They don't have to be the same de dicto or de re. They can be the same if you so stipulate. If you stipulate (1) then you would be saying something that is a necessary truth (and also trivial). If you stipulate (2) then you would be saying something contingent. My father is James but it could have been Tom, Dick or Harry (or someone else).

For the statement "my father (James) is my father" to be an instance of the so-called principle of identity (A is A) it must take the form "my father (James) is my father (James)," so the first "A" is identical to the second "A." Of course you can say, for instance, that "my father (James) is my father (the man who married my mother)," but this would no longer be an instance of "A is A." Remember: "A is A" is the identity between something and itself.

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

guigus wrote:
In the expression "A is A," the first "A" must mean exactly the same thing as the second "A," since it is "A is A" and not "A is B."

No, it doesn't.

1. My father (whoever it is) is my father.
2. My father (James) is my father.

These are just two possible versions of "my father is my father". They don't have to be the same de dicto or de re. They can be the same if you so stipulate. If you stipulate (1) then you would be saying something that is a necessary truth (and also trivial). If you stipulate (2) then you would be saying something contingent. My father is James but it could have been Tom, Dick or Harry (or someone else).

But 1. My father, whoever he is, is my father, and 2. My father, James, is my father, are different sentences. So how can they possibly be synonymous? "James, my father, is my father" is a necessary truth, but has nothing at all to do with the law of identity.

As Russell pointed out, although George may want to know whether Sott was the author of Waverly, and although Scott was (indeed) the author of Waverly, it is not true that George wanted to know whether Scott was Scott.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Night Ripper wrote:

guigus wrote:
In the expression "A is A," the first "A" must mean exactly the same thing as the second "A," since it is "A is A" and not "A is B."

No, it doesn't.

1. My father (whoever it is) is my father.
2. My father (James) is my father.

These are just two possible versions of "my father is my father". They don't have to be the same de dicto or de re. They can be the same if you so stipulate. If you stipulate (1) then you would be saying something that is a necessary truth (and also trivial). If you stipulate (2) then you would be saying something contingent. My father is James but it could have been Tom, Dick or Harry (or someone else).

But 1. My father, whoever he is, is my father, and 2. My father, James, is my father, are different sentences. So how can they possibly be synonymous? "James, my father, is my father" is a necessary truth, but has nothing at all to do with the law of identity.

As Russell pointed out, although George may want to know whether Sott was the author of Waverly, and although Scott was (indeed) the author of Waverly, it is not true that George wanted to know whether Scott was Scott.

Remarkable: I agree with every single word of this post. Now please tell me if you agree with the following:

1. According to the so-called "principle" of identity, "A is A."

2. According to the so-called "principle" of non-contradiction, it cannot be true that "A is A" and also that "A is not A," so if A conforms to "A is A," then it cannot conform to "A is not A" - since its being not A would contradict its being A - or "A cannot be not A."

3. According to the so-called "principle" of the excluded middle, either it is true that "A is A" or that "A is not A," so if A does not conform to "A is not A," then it must conform to "A is A" - by being A rather than being not A - or "A must be A."

0 Replies

The necessary truth of any truth

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know