Correcting the Principle of Identity

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

guigus wrote:
The sentence "every truth must be true" has the same meaning of the sentence "every truth must be a truth," since to be a truth and to be true are the same "thing."

Nope.

guigus wrote:
However, the statement "all dogs must have four legs" is not an instance of "A is A," just because not all "things" with four legs are dogs.

No, "all dogs must have four legs" is not an instance of "A is A" because "dogs" and "things with four legs" aren't the same thing.

guigus wrote:
Although that has not much to do with my reasoning, the statement "every falsehood must be false" means exactly the same thing as the statement "it is true that every falsehood must be false," as any statement contains an implicit assertion of its own truth: "it is false that it is raining" is perfectly equivalent to "it is false that it is true that it is raining."

Indeed.

All dogs doesn't have 4 legs, which is why "truth" is subjective, can be alterd, and uncertain.

"Every falsehood must be false", no? There are misunderstandings, there are lies, and intriques ..etc.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

guigus wrote:
So every noun guarantees the existence of whatever it refers to: God exists just because "God" is a noun, Santa Claus exists just because "Santa Claus" is a noun, and so on. This remembers me of the "proofs" of God's existence from medieval times.

No, a noun doesn't guarantee the existence of whatever it refers to. I'm not sure how you could have jumped to that absurd conclusion. A deductive statement need not be empirically true, only logically valid. "All unicorns are unicorns" is a valid statement, despite the fact that there are no such things as unicorns.

guigus wrote:
Take the adjective "existent." According to you, "existence is existent" is not an instance of "A is A" (every noun has a corresponding adjective form conveying the same meaning, so its form cannot be used to determine its philosophical status: syntax analysis is not yet philosophy).

No, nouns and their corresponding adjectives do not convey the same meaning. If they did, they'd be the same words.

guigus wrote:
The sentence "every truth must be true" has the same meaning of the sentence "every truth must be a truth," since to be a truth and to be true are the same "thing."

Nope.

guigus wrote:
However, the statement "all dogs must have four legs" is not an instance of "A is A," just because not all "things" with four legs are dogs.

No, "all dogs must have four legs" is not an instance of "A is A" because "dogs" and "things with four legs" aren't the same thing.

guigus wrote:
Although that has not much to do with my reasoning, the statement "every falsehood must be false" means exactly the same thing as the statement "it is true that every falsehood must be false," as any statement contains an implicit assertion of its own truth: "it is false that it is raining" is perfectly equivalent to "it is false that it is true that it is raining."

Indeed.

guigus wrote:
Better than impure rubbish.

To each his own.

1. There are no "deductive statements". Only arguments (or reasoning) can be deductive. There are no "valid statements" either for the same reason. All unicorns are unicorns is a truth of logic. In fact, it is an example of a logical truth, also known as a tautology. And, in fact, it is true that all unicorns have a horn on their heads, since what that sentence means is that if anything is a unicorn, then it has a horn on its head. And that, of course, is true. But, I agree that the use of a noun in no way implies that the noun refers to anything. If all nouns referred to something then Santa Claus exists would be necessarily true, and Santa Claus does not exist would have to be necessarily false, and obviously the first is false, and the second is true.

2. I (of course, now could anyone not?) agree that every truth must be true (which is false) could not possibly mean the same thing as it must be that every truth is true, since the latter is true. And what is false and what is true, could not possibly mean the same thing.

3. Every falsehood must be false is, itself, false. What is true is that it must be that every falsehood is false.

2 Replies

@chicalleje,

chicalleje wrote:

Help me out, I don't speak english very well.

No problem.

chicalleje wrote:

What we call reality, the objetive world, the physical world, you name it, it 'is our view of the world.

Although objective reality depends on our awareness of it, we must take care to not confuse it with that awareness: there is indeed something "out there," whatever it is. If we deny that, then objective reality loses its objectivity: the term "object," from which "objectivity" derives, means not only what we perceive, but also something against our will -- as much as against our senses. An object is precisely whatever does not simply conform to our views, but also demands conformity to it.

chicalleje wrote:

Truth is our interpretations of the sense data, what we all agree that happens, what we can share.

Truth is not only an interpretation. If it were so, we would fall into an endless interpretation without ever encountering a falsehood. An objective element must decide in favor of truth. Besides, truth excludes falsehood, so you must make your point before you can share it as a truth with others, which can be dangerous to you. Just remember how Galileo found himself threatened enough by the Catholic Church to publicly abandon the idea of a heliocentric solar system, which he believed to be true.

chicalleje wrote:

You can desagree in various matters, but you can't desagree in logical thinking, not matter how hard you try, you can't think ilogically, so logic is an agreement. The scientific method is another tool of agreement. Reality is what we all agree to be true using language.

Today, one of the most controversial fields of knowledge is precisely the logic field: classical, intuitionistic and paraconsistent logic are now in dispute, with big divisions and conflicts within each one. The fundamental point of contention is the properties of negation. So although you may be right when you say that we can't think illogically, the problem is to know what to think logically really means. The same goes for the scientific method, since there is no definite agreement about its nature as well: the authority of science comes from its practical achievements, on which our lives currently depend.

chicalleje wrote:

You can't say that truth must be true, that sentences has no meaning at all. Can I say that every object with length either has a meter long or that it hasn't? Answer is NO, theres one thing that have length but I can not say that it is a meter long or that it's not. That thing is the International Prototype Meter.

Before answering to your objection, I would like to congratulate you for giving arguments, which is not a common practice around here. First, the fact that you do not agree with the meaning of the sentence "every truth must be true," or with that of "every truth must be a truth," which is the same, is a proof that it means something, rather than a proof of the opposite: if that sentence had no meaning, then you wouldn't be able to disagree with that meaning. Now regarding the International Prototype Meter, it is, as the name already conveys, the prototype of a meter, which makes it a meter par excellence, hence a measure of itself, rather than not: if the International Prototype Meter were not a measure of itself, then it would not be a measure of anything else. You are probably trying to say that measuring it with itself has no practical purpose, with which I agree. However, something having no practical purpose does not mean it is impossible: although it has no practical purpose to go from New York to Chicago via Japan, it is perfectly possible.

chicalleje wrote:

"A = A" is one thing, but you are doing something different with "A truth must be True" [...]

If you agree with "A is A," then you must agree that "every truth must be true" as long as it means that "every truth must be a truth." But you are right in saying I am "doing something different" with "every truth must be true": indeed, I am correcting "A is A," since it is not applicable to falsehoods.

chicalleje wrote:

[...], what you can say is "truth = truth" and that says nothing. All your reasoning is based upon a senseless statement, that every truth must be true, that is the same as to remain in silence.

You must be confused. First you say that I can say "truth = truth," then you say that I am saying nothing. Either I can say it, so it is something "sayable," or it is nothing, so I cannot say it, don't you agree? And since I have just said it, then I can say it. And if it were the same as to remain in silence, then we would not be here discussing it, and you would have nothing to disagree with in the first place. The statement "every truth must be true" states that the circumstance of anything being true is itself necessarily true, or that very circumstance vanishes, which is not only something positive, but also something very important.

chicalleje wrote:

Sorry if I can't make myself clear. I though that I could do it but I can't find the right words.

You have made yourself clear enough to me.

chicalleje wrote:

Good Luck.

Thanks, good luck to you too.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

guigus wrote:
So every noun guarantees the existence of whatever it refers to: God exists just because "God" is a noun, Santa Claus exists just because "Santa Claus" is a noun, and so on. This remembers me of the "proofs" of God's existence from medieval times.

No, a noun doesn't guarantee the existence of whatever it refers to. I'm not sure how you could have jumped to that absurd conclusion. A deductive statement need not be empirically true, only logically valid. "All unicorns are unicorns" is a valid statement, despite the fact that there are no such things as unicorns.

It was you to disqualify "every truth must be true" on the ground of "truth" being a noun while "true" is an adjective, as if because of that "being a truth" were different from "being true," which it is not. So I concluded that for you "truth" has an objective existence granted by its being a noun while "true" is left to oblivion because it is a mere adjective. If there is another conclusion to draw from your argument, please let me know.

joefromchicago wrote:

guigus wrote:
Take the adjective "existent." According to you, "existence is existent" is not an instance of "A is A" (every noun has a corresponding adjective form conveying the same meaning, so its form cannot be used to determine its philosophical status: syntax analysis is not yet philosophy).

No, nouns and their corresponding adjectives do not convey the same meaning. If they did, they'd be the same words.

So, according to you, "dead" and "deceased" must have different meanings, for they are different words. Find another argument, please.

joefromchicago wrote:

guigus wrote:
The sentence "every truth must be true" has the same meaning of the sentence "every truth must be a truth," since to be a truth and to be true are the same "thing."

Nope.

Remember The Beatles? They had a song: "I say yes, you say no," and I suspect we will not go too far just doing that. It is not enough to say no, you must both clarify your point and justify it.

joefromchicago wrote:

guigus wrote:
However, the statement "all dogs must have four legs" is not an instance of "A is A," just because not all "things" with four legs are dogs.

No, "all dogs must have four legs" is not an instance of "A is A" because "dogs" and "things with four legs" aren't the same thing.

Of course they aren't the same thing: having four legs refers to a universe far bigger than being a dog. However, if all four-legged things were dogs, then they would be the same, since all dogs are four-legged things, don't you agree?

joefromchicago wrote:

guigus wrote:
Although that has not much to do with my reasoning, the statement "every falsehood must be false" means exactly the same thing as the statement "it is true that every falsehood must be false," as any statement contains an implicit assertion of its own truth: "it is false that it is raining" is perfectly equivalent to "it is false that it is true that it is raining."

Indeed.

So you were indeed wrong?

guigus wrote:

Better than impure rubbish.

To each his own.[/quote]

Rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric. Don't you get tired of that?

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

HexHammer wrote:

All dogs doesn't have 4 legs, which is why "truth" is subjective, can be alterd, and uncertain.

You mean all dogs don't have four legs (I hope writing correctly is not also "subjective" to you). The truth of "all dogs have four legs" depends on what you consider a dog, but once you decide you will not consider three-legged dogs as dogs it becomes true. Your use of the term "subjective" is also incorrect: you mean relative: although the truth of "1 = 1" is clearly subjective, it is not relative.

HexHammer wrote:

"Every falsehood must be false", no? There are misunderstandings, there are lies, and intriques ..etc.

And your argumentation is a very good example.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

guigus wrote:
So every noun guarantees the existence of whatever it refers to: God exists just because "God" is a noun, Santa Claus exists just because "Santa Claus" is a noun, and so on. This remembers me of the "proofs" of God's existence from medieval times.

No, a noun doesn't guarantee the existence of whatever it refers to. I'm not sure how you could have jumped to that absurd conclusion. A deductive statement need not be empirically true, only logically valid. "All unicorns are unicorns" is a valid statement, despite the fact that there are no such things as unicorns.

guigus wrote:
Take the adjective "existent." According to you, "existence is existent" is not an instance of "A is A" (every noun has a corresponding adjective form conveying the same meaning, so its form cannot be used to determine its philosophical status: syntax analysis is not yet philosophy).

No, nouns and their corresponding adjectives do not convey the same meaning. If they did, they'd be the same words.

guigus wrote:
The sentence "every truth must be true" has the same meaning of the sentence "every truth must be a truth," since to be a truth and to be true are the same "thing."

Nope.

guigus wrote:
However, the statement "all dogs must have four legs" is not an instance of "A is A," just because not all "things" with four legs are dogs.

No, "all dogs must have four legs" is not an instance of "A is A" because "dogs" and "things with four legs" aren't the same thing.

guigus wrote:
Although that has not much to do with my reasoning, the statement "every falsehood must be false" means exactly the same thing as the statement "it is true that every falsehood must be false," as any statement contains an implicit assertion of its own truth: "it is false that it is raining" is perfectly equivalent to "it is false that it is true that it is raining."

Indeed.

guigus wrote:
Better than impure rubbish.

To each his own.

1. There are no "deductive statements". Only arguments (or reasoning) can be deductive. There are no "valid statements" either for the same reason. All unicorns are unicorns is a truth of logic. In fact, it is an example of a logical truth, also known as a tautology. And, in fact, it is true that all unicorns have a horn on their heads, since what that sentence means is that if anything is a unicorn, then it has a horn on its head. And that, of course, is true. But, I agree that the use of a noun in no way implies that the noun refers to anything. If all nouns referred to something then Santa Claus exists would be necessarily true, and Santa Claus does not exist would have to be necessarily false, and obviously the first is false, and the second is true.

2. I (of course, now could anyone not?) agree that every truth must be true (which is false) could not possibly mean the same thing as it must be that every truth is true, since the latter is true. And what is false and what is true, could not possibly mean the same thing.

3. Every falsehood must be false is, itself, false. What is true is that it must be that every falsehood is false.

As I am already tired to explain to you, the statement "every truth must be true" means that the circumstance of anything being true must itself be true, which is true, and not that whatever is true must be so, which is false. You read "every truth must be true" as meaning "whatever is true must be so," which is a reification of the circumstance of anything being true, known as truth (a reification of truth is its reduction to the thing to which it applies). The statement "every truth must be true" has nothing to do with your addiction to truth reification.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

1. There are no "deductive statements". Only arguments (or reasoning) can be deductive. There are no "valid statements" either for the same reason. All unicorns are unicorns is a truth of logic. In fact, it is an example of a logical truth, also known as a tautology.

Point well taken.

1 Reply

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

It was you to disqualify "every truth must be true" on the ground of "truth" being a noun while "true" is an adjective, as if because of that "being a truth" were different from "being true," which it is not. So I concluded that for you "truth" has an objective existence granted by its being a noun while "true" is left to oblivion because it is a mere adjective. If there is another conclusion to draw from your argument, please let me know.

The conclusion that I already explained: "truth" is something, "true" describes something. You, on the other hand, think that the description of something is the same thing as the thing described. That is manifestly false. If I were to say "all truths are beautiful," would you then conclude that "truth" is the same thing as "beautiful?"

guigus wrote:

So, according to you, "dead" and "deceased" must have different meanings, for they are different words.

Indeed, they do have different connotations.

guigus wrote:

Remember The Beatles? They had a song: "I say yes, you say no," and I suspect we will not go too far just doing that. It is not enough to say no, you must both clarify your point and justify it.

I have explained my position. There's no need to go over it again.

guigus wrote:

Of course they aren't the same thing: having four legs refers to a universe far bigger than being a dog. However, if all four-legged things were dogs, then they would be the same, since all dogs are four-legged things, don't you agree?

You're confusing the principle of identity (A is A) with a simple conditional (if all As are Bs, and C is an A, then C is a B). You have made some sort of claim based on the principle of identity. Try to stick to the subject.

guigus wrote:

So you were indeed wrong?

No, I was just agreeing with something that you said that actually made sense. It wasn't really relevant to your argument or to mine, so I'm not sure how that would make me wrong. But at least it made sense, so I guess that's one in a row for you.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
1. There are no "deductive statements". Only arguments (or reasoning) can be deductive. There are no "valid statements" either for the same reason. All unicorns are unicorns is a truth of logic. In fact, it is an example of a logical truth, also known as a tautology.

Point well taken.

Of course there are no "deductive statements": reasoning -- or deduction for that matter -- demands more than one statement, it spans between statements. As for unicorns, they are just possibilities without any actuality. If you call them "logical truths," then you reduce logic to the realm of possibilities, which is a sad thing to do.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

guigus wrote:
It was you to disqualify "every truth must be true" on the ground of "truth" being a noun while "true" is an adjective, as if because of that "being a truth" were different from "being true," which it is not. So I concluded that for you "truth" has an objective existence granted by its being a noun while "true" is left to oblivion because it is a mere adjective. If there is another conclusion to draw from your argument, please let me know.

The conclusion that I already explained: "truth" is something, "true" describes something. You, on the other hand, think that the description of something is the same thing as the thing described. That is manifestly false. If I were to say "all truths are beautiful," would you then conclude that "truth" is the same thing as "beautiful?"

Man you are so confused. Fortunately there is simple way out of that confusion: just replace "every truth must be true" by "every truth must be a truth," then ask yourself if a truth can be different from its being true.

joefromchicago wrote:

guigus wrote:
So, according to you, "dead" and "deceased" must have different meanings, for they are different words.

Indeed, they do have different connotations.

Wow! Die hard 5.o! I guess you are thus willing to hold that being true has a different "connotation" than being a truth?

joefromchicago wrote:

guigus wrote:
Remember The Beatles? They had a song: "I say yes, you say no," and I suspect we will not go too far just doing that. It is not enough to say no, you must both clarify your point and justify it.

I have explained my position. There's no need to go over it again.

Yes there is, which leads us back to that famous song.

joefromchicago wrote:

guigus wrote:
Of course they aren't the same thing: having four legs refers to a universe far bigger than being a dog. However, if all four-legged things were dogs, then they would be the same, since all dogs are four-legged things, don't you agree?

You're confusing the principle of identity (A is A) with a simple conditional (if all As are Bs, and C is an A, then C is a B). You have made some sort of claim based on the principle of identity. Try to stick to the subject.

More confusion. My subject is the necessary truth of any truth (no adjectives here, for your despair): being true is the same as being a truth, which is why "every truth must be a truth" and "every truth must be true" have identical meanings.

joefromchicago wrote:

guigus wrote:
So you were indeed wrong?

No, I was just agreeing with something that you said that actually made sense. It wasn't really relevant to your argument or to mine, so I'm not sure how that would make me wrong. But at least it made sense, so I guess that's one in a row for you.

Sorry, I forgot you are always right. Even so, it is no surprise that this has nothing to do with my argument, since I was commenting on a point made by you by first noting that it had nothing to do with my previous posts. I should have let it pass unnoticed, given the result.

1 Reply

I have noticed a recurring difficulty here. The statement "every truth must be true" has been repeatedly taken to mean that whatever is true must be so. One problem is that we mostly use the adjective "true" to refer to anything that is true rather than to its truth itself, so we forget that such an adjective also applies to the circumstance of anything being true just as well, although it then becomes necessary. For example, the same way I can say that my presence here is contingently true, I can also say that the circumstance of my presence here being true is necessarily true. This last sentence is precisely the meaning of "every truth must be true": the necessary truth of any truth does not refer to any particularly true being, but rather to its truth as a circumstance, by saying it is necessarily true.

0 Replies

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

If you agree with "A is A," then you must agree that "every truth must be true" as long as it means that "every truth must be a truth." But you are right in saying I am "doing something different" with "every truth must be true": indeed, I am correcting "A is A," since it is not applicable to falsehoods.

Is not the same to say "Truth must be True" (A truth must be a truth is the same thing), there is no ethics in lógical thinking, there's no "must be". If yoy say "Truth is truth", that is the same as to not say anything, is a tautology. Truth is truth becouse it is.

So truth is what it is, but theres nothing beyond what we call truth to giv truth it's escence of truth. All that there is is uses of the word truth where you can say that truth is a lie or viceversa, but that is linguistics.

I don't desagree with your sentence "a truth must be true", I never said that I desagree, I said that that sentence has no meaning, I can't agree or desagree with it. You CAN say it, but it is a taotology, it isn't true or false.

Now in other order of thinking, you can indee say that "a Truth must be a Truth" if the word truth does not mean the same at the begining of the sentence and at the end. So the second truth is a cuality of the first. this is another game of language, it has sense, but no longer is "A = A".

1 Reply

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

Man you are so confused. Fortunately there is simple way out of that confusion: just replace "every truth must be true" by "every truth must be a truth," then ask yourself if a truth can be different from its being true.

The fact that you're fighting so hard against adopting "every truth is a truth" as your "A is A" principle is sufficient to show that even you think there's a difference between it and "every truth is true." If, however, you're now willing to adopt it, then I would have no objection.

guigus wrote:

Wow! Die hard 5.o! I guess you are thus willing to hold that being true has a different "connotation" than being a truth?

Of course it does. It has a different denotation as well.

guigus wrote:

More confusion. My subject is the necessary truth of any truth (no adjectives here, for your despair): being true is the same as being a truth, which is why "every truth must be a truth" and "every truth must be true" have identical meanings.

Give it a rest.

How about explaining what you mean by "if we say that every falsehood must be false, then we are saying that every falsehood must be the truth it falsifies."

2 Replies

@chicalleje,

chicalleje wrote:

guigus wrote:

If you agree with "A is A," then you must agree that "every truth must be true" as long as it means that "every truth must be a truth." But you are right in saying I am "doing something different" with "every truth must be true": indeed, I am correcting "A is A," since it is not applicable to falsehoods.

Is not the same to say "Truth must be True" (A truth must be a truth is the same thing), there is no ethics in lógical thinking, there's no "must be". If yoy say "Truth is truth", that is the same as to not say anything, is a tautology. Truth is truth becouse it is.

Can you live without food and water? That's necessity, and I can assure you it precedes ethics. Now regarding tautology, a tautology is a definition of something by means of itself. For example: "a circle is a geometrical figure that has the shape of a circle." However, the statement "every truth must be true" is not a definition: it is the recognition of a necessity, namely, that a truth must be true, otherwise it ceases to be a truth. If you find it obvious, then good for you, since it is important, but it is no tautology.

chicalleje wrote:

So truth is what it is, but theres nothing beyond what we call truth to giv truth it's escence of truth. All that there is is uses of the word truth where you can say that truth is a lie or viceversa, but that is linguistics.

Truth has no "essence": it rather gives everything its essence. Truth is not the word "truth" more than you are your name.

chicalleje wrote:

I don't desagree with your sentence "a truth must be true", I never said that I desagree, I said that that sentence has no meaning, I can't agree or desagree with it. You CAN say it, but it is a taotology, it isn't true or false.

You are definitely not well, since first you say that you agree, then you say that you cannot agree or disagree. You must make up your mind. Anyway, even if "every truth must be true" were a tautology it would have a meaning: the tautology "a circle is a geometrical figure that has the shape of a circle" has a meaning: being a tautology is being redundant, not meaningless. However, "every truth must be true" is not a tautology: it asserts the necessary identity between a truth and itself, which is a logical principle long known as the "principle" of identity. In fact, without such a principle, tautologies themselves would become impossible, since the very concept of "self" depends on identity. Without the necessary identity between a truth and itself, language itself would become impossible.

chicalleje wrote:

Now in other order of thinking, you can indee say that "a Truth must be a Truth" if the word truth does not mean the same at the begining of the sentence and at the end. So the second truth is a cuality of the first. this is another game of language, it has sense, but no longer is "A = A".

Now you are inadvertently starting grasp what I am saying. The principle of identity in its classical form, "A is A," tries to purge itself from all difference, by identifying truth with being, as if there were no falsehood. In its correct form, the principle reads "every truth must be true." In this form, identity coexists with difference: the truth that is true, for example, the statement "it is raining," must be true, so it must be raining for the statement "it is raining" to be true. The truth of a truth (the actual rain) is hence different from the truth it makes true (the stated rain). However, since the truth of a being is a true being, they are also identical. Which means: there is no "pure" identity, as the old form of the principle of identity, "A is A," tries to convey. From the beginning, identity is "impure," like the food you must eat in order to live.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

guigus wrote:
Man you are so confused. Fortunately there is simple way out of that confusion: just replace "every truth must be true" by "every truth must be a truth," then ask yourself if a truth can be different from its being true.

The fact that you're fighting so hard against adopting "every truth is a truth" as your "A is A" principle is sufficient to show that even you think there's a difference between it and "every truth is true." If, however, you're now willing to adopt it, then I would have no objection.

The statements "every truth must be true" and "every truth must be a truth" have identical meanings, and I never "fought" that (I also used "the necessary truth of any truth" to convey the same thing). However, one of the reasons I adopt the form "every truth must be true" is precisely because it resembles less the classical form of the so-called "principle" of identity, "A is A," with its heavenly identity removed from the real world: it makes what I have to say easier to understand (to those willing to understand it, rather than to "fight").

joefromchicago wrote:

guigus wrote:
Wow! Die hard 5.o! I guess you are thus willing to hold that being true has a different "connotation" than being a truth?

Of course it does. It has a different denotation as well.

And what would that different denotation be? Or is it a secret of yours? Never mind, I already know that: being a truth to you is being something true while being true is being... a truth?

joefromchicago wrote:

guigus wrote:
More confusion. My subject is the necessary truth of any truth (no adjectives here, for your despair): being true is the same as being a truth, which is why "every truth must be a truth" and "every truth must be true" have identical meanings.

Give it a rest.

You first (I am a gentleman).

joefromchicago wrote:

How about explaining what you mean by "if we say that every falsehood must be false, then we are saying that every falsehood must be the truth it falsifies."

By saying that a falsehood must be false (that its falsity must be false) you are denying that it can be a falsehood. Hence, you are saying that it must rather be true. And since this truth is the one it would falsify were it false, you are saying it must be the truth it falsifies.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

The fact that you're fighting so hard against adopting "every truth is a truth" as your "A is A" principle is sufficient to show that even you think there's a difference between it and "every truth is true."

Let me explain to you what I am fighting: the reduction of truth to its object. In very simple terms: the truth of something is not identical to that something. Hence, when you say that "every truth must be true" you are not saying that something true must be so, but rather that its truth must be true. The reduction of truth to its object (the so-called "reification" of truth) is what makes you misread "every truth must be true" -- the necessary truth of any truth -- as meaning the necessary truth of something true, rather than the necessary truth of its truth.

0 Replies

So the statement "every truth must be true" has two interpretations:

1) "Anything true must be true," which is wrong.

2) "The truth of anything true must be true," which is right.

Now I would like to proceed with my reasoning by presenting its first eight logical steps, which constitute my first philosophical category, Variability:

If any truth were untrue, then it would not be a truth: every truth must be true. And yet, since the truth of a being is a true being, for any truth to be true it must have itself as a truth, which must be different from it. So its truth must be different from itself, hence untrue. But if the truth of a truth is untrue, then the truth it makes true is also untrue: any truth becomes its falsity, which makes every truth variable. Conversely, any falsehood must have itself as a true falsehood, by which it is also a truth. Yet still, since any truth must be false, the truth of no falsehood has any truth: any falsehood becomes the truth it falsifies, which makes every falsehood also variable. Finally, since any truth must be false and its falsity must be this truth it falsifies, if any being is true, then it must be false, and if it is false, then it must be true. Even though any being is either true or false, hence either a being, once true, or nothing, once false: as it varies between true and false, its variability between a being and nothing becomes all being.

0 Replies

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
How about explaining what you mean by "if we say that every falsehood must be false, then we are saying that every falsehood must be the truth it falsifies."

By saying that a falsehood must be false (that its falsity must be false) you are denying that it can be a falsehood.

I never said any such thing.

guigus wrote:

Hence, you are saying that it must rather be true.

And I never said that.

guigus wrote:

And since this truth is the one it would falsify were it false, you are saying it must be the truth it falsifies.

And I never said that either. I gave you this opportunity to explain what you meant, not to invent an argument that I never made. Would you like to take another stab at that?

1 Reply

Guys, you should really stop arguing with guigus as he lacks rationallity and out of compulsive behaviour are fixated on his views, no arguments in all the world can sway him.
It's like talking to a pre-programmed robot which can't divert from it's programming.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

guigus wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
How about explaining what you mean by "if we say that every falsehood must be false, then we are saying that every falsehood must be the truth it falsifies."

By saying that a falsehood must be false (that its falsity must be false) you are denying that it can be a falsehood.

I never said any such thing.

guigus wrote:
Hence, you are saying that it must rather be true.

And I never said that.

guigus wrote:
And since this truth is the one it would falsify were it false, you are saying it must be the truth it falsifies.

And I never said that either. I gave you this opportunity to explain what you meant, not to invent an argument that I never made. Would you like to take another stab at that?

And I gave you the opportunity of understanding what I mean by "if we say that every falsehood must be false, then we are saying that every falsehood must be the truth it falsifies," but you thought I was talking about something you (never) said, since I explained my point in the second person. Anyway, the opportunity remains there, you just have to re-read my post without thinking it is about you.

1 Reply

Correcting the Principle of Identity

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know