/lit/ - Literature

He is right

I prefer Fichte, who said (I=I)=(A=A)

>>18570048
I agree, but there are people who think that A=A can be disproven (it can't).

>>18570013
yes, how do you think the universe exists?

>>18570071
Isn't this just saying A=A with a different symbol?

>>18570086
It's the self identity of the self positing I which grounds logic I believe is his point

>>18570113
Okay, I think I understand. Would you say that it similar to Weininger saying that the proposition of identity is identical with the statement "I am"?

>>18570128
Sounds close yeah.

>>18570075
There are more flibbons and tinkleweeds in the sky than are drempt of in your undercarriage Horatio.

>>18570013
Is this from Sex and Character or another piece of writing?

>>18570158
It is from SEX AND CHARACTER: Second Part, Chapter VII: Logic, Ethics and the Self.

>>18570075
>there are people who think that A=A can be disproven (it can't).
can you list some notable people who maintain this? I’m curious

>>18570189
thanks, I own a copy but hadn’t read it yet, but this makes me want to read it soon

>>18570013
>For all x, a=a.
Idk seems irrelevant to me.

>>18570215
Trotsky:
>I will here attempt to sketch the substance of the problem in a very concrete form. The Aristotelian logic of the simple syllogism starts from the proposition that ‘A’ is equal to ‘A’. This postulate is accepted as an axiom for a multitude of practical human actions and elementary generalisations. But in reality ‘A’ is not equal to ‘A’. This is easy to prove if we observe these two letters under a lens—they are quite different from each other. But, one can object, the question is not of the size or the form of the letters, since they are only symbols for equal quantities, for instance, a pound of sugar. The objection is beside the point; in reality a pound of sugar is never equal to a pound of sugar—a more delicate scale always discloses a difference. Again one can object: but a pound of sugar is equal to itself. Neither is this true—all bodies change uninterruptedly in size, weight, colour, etc. They are never equal to themselves. A sophist will respond that a pound of sugar is equal to itself “at any given moment”.

>Aside from the extremely dubious practical value of this “axiom”, it does not withstand theoretical criticism either. How should we really conceive the word “moment”? If it is an infinitesimal interval of time, then a pound of sugar is subjected during the course of that “moment” to inevitable changes. Or is the “moment” a purely mathematical abstraction, that is, a zero of time? But everything exists in time; and existence itself is an uninterrupted process of transformation; time is consequently a fundamental element of existence. Thus the axiom ‘A’ is equal to ‘A’ signifies that a thing is equal to itself if it does not change, that is, if it does not exist.

>At first glance it could seem that these “subtleties” are useless. In reality they are of decisive significance. The axiom ‘A’ is equal to ‘A’ appears on one hand to be the point of departure for all our knowledge, on the other hand the point of departure for all the errors in our knowledge. To make use of the axiom of ‘A’ is equal to ‘A’ with impunity is possible only within certain limits. When quantitative changes in ‘A’ are negligible for the task at hand then we can presume that ‘A’ is equal to ‘A’. This is, for example, the manner in which a buyer and a seller consider a pound of sugar. We consider the temperature of the sun likewise. Until recently we consider the buying power of the dollar in the same way. But quantitative changes beyond certain limits become converted into qualitative. A pound of sugar subjected to the action of water or kerosene ceases to be a pound of sugar. A dollar in the embrace of a president ceases to be a dollar. To determine at the right moment the critical point where quantity changes into quality is one of the most important and difficult tasks in all the spheres of knowledge including sociology.

>>18570287
This nigga straight up retarded. I don't even know where to start with this

>>18570238
If things didn't possess the identity of themselves, it would not be possible to meaningfully think about anything.

"This statement will never be true"

Go fuck yourself OP.

>>18570376
Whether the statement will ever be true or not, it possesses the identity of itself (A=A) and is differentiated from everything it is not (A≠not-A).

>>18570287
I've read this. What's the source?

>>18570367
i don't think that's necessarily the case. It's certainly possible that a thing could not posses any meaningful essence, e.g. an identity, and still think about it. Void is a good example.

>>18570287
what the fuck I thought you had to be at least a little smart to start a revolution

>>18570424
It looks like it is from something called THE ABC OF MATERIALIST DIALECTICS:

>Trotsky’s ‘ABC of Materialist Dialectics’ is a brilliant short explanation of Marxist philosophy. It was written as part of a defence of Marxism against a middle class revisionist tendency in the American Trotskyist movement in the late 1930s, which attempted to challenge its basic principles. (See Trotsky’s In Defence of Marxism). As opposed to pragmatism and empiricism, Trotsky defended dialectical materialism as a richer, fuller, more comprehensive view of society and life in general.

https://www.marxist.ca/article/the-abcs-of-materialist-dialectics

>>18570411
I mis-whatevered .


It's, Russell's equivalent of "You will never believe this statement." Not the fucking other shit I wrote. It has to do with incomplete / consistant v complete / inconsistent sets. I don't remember all that bullshit that justifies it cause I don't need to.

FAGGOT

When
A { A(a) = A
Interesting things happen indeed, and not both ways usually just dominant hiearchies of one way fractals

Neurons and Nebulas
Microchips and City Layouts
Algae and subalgae
Broccoli and floret

Only verbally are human boundaries placed on the essence of the thing in of itself for chunkable definition. Much like adding significant digits to pure math to make it actionable when the real world is purely mathematical but inestimable.

>>18570481
>Only verbally are human boundaries placed on the essence of the thing in of itself for chunkable definition.

How would you express the statement "It is raining" logically?

*stands half way through a door*

I'm both inside and outside at the same time. What now?

Reality has no obligation to be logical. Any problems created by an illogical reality could be solved illogically.

>>18570608
>logicists seething

∀x∀y ( [x=y] □ [x=y] )

This theorem is proved by Kripke using the axioms of logic that Trotsky finds problematic. No amount of Marxist sophistry will undo the axioms or the theorems.

Theres a missing conditional just before the modal operator that never appeared in the post.

>>18570708
>>18570686
this post?

>>18570440
If something doesn't possess a meaningful essence, then the quality of its "not possessing any meaningful essence" is its essence and identity, about which we are able to think.

>>18570473
>I don't remember all that bullshit that justifies it cause I don't need to.
What the law of identity describes here is the sentence. The sentence is the concept. "You will never believe this" is a quality or predicate of the concept of the sentence.

>>18570075
given A is a proposition: A is not A
then A = A? asks is A A?
well assuming A is A then A is not A.
QED
>inb4 MUH SELF REFERENCE BAD
cope harder nigger

>>18570608
>Any problems created by an illogical reality could be solved illogically.
What does illogic solve?

>>18571136
what does logic solve?

>>18571145
All problems.

>>18571148
problems dependent on logic.
problems dependent on the illogical.

>>18570287
>>18570456
>is a brilliant short explanation of Marxist philosophy
Oh, it is, just not in the way they were thinking.

>>18571170
All problems are dependent on logic which is why logic is able to solve them. Even illogic is dependent on logic. Logic is all.

>>18571220
>All problems are dependent on logic which is why logic is able to solve them
Prove it

I have no idea what most people in this topic mean by "the principle of identity." Just writing down "A=A" means nothing. Is "A" a singular expression? Is it a variable? Is there an implicit quantifier? What semantics is "=" meant to have? Some people seem to think it has something to do with the self or some bullshit like that.

From the perspective of modern logic, I presume the statement is something like: "Everything is identical to itself." That gets rendered formally as: ∀x(x=x). Such a statement is a theorem or axiom of every standard logical system I know of. The identity symbol must operate in a certain way for these logics to have their expressive power (think of Russell's elimination of descriptions works, for example), and it can only operate that way if this is a theorem.

If you dislike this principle of identity for whatever (bad) reason, your bone is with the entirety of modern logic.

>>18571225
"All problems are dependent on logic" is defined as being that which is solvable by logic. A=A.

>>18571252
The claim, P, All problems are dependent on logic, is not at all a description of a proof of the claims certainty.
Particularly interesting, your claims that All problems of logic are solvable, generally.
Laughable you can't even defend what you preach.
>A = A
oh yeah the proposition is the proposition, really impressive.
The low IQ of the average /lit/ poster is stunning.
I guess reading Aristotle's ethics didn't actually make you better than everyone else.
Meanwhile actually solving mathematical problems has inherently advanced my abilities, particularly to reason, and see poor reasoning.
Admit you don't know, it's honest at least.

>>18571148
Explain why logic hasn't solved my lack of a gf. This is a huge problem for me and I've run out of options

>>18570348
>>18570447
>>18571193

>>18570686
Predicate logic is bad and modernity and anglo. Only Aristotelean logic is trad and good.

>>18571225
THE post that destroyed redditpol

>>18571864
trad and good needs to get raped.
pic related, I'm writing a short story about a time traveling rapist and falls in love with on of his victims and then kills himself out of guilt, and then she kills herself, very tramedy.
It's meant to be an analogue about the time I raped a fed in 1677.

>>18571193
Lel

>>18570013
Bus.
Platform.
Bus Platform. That's the place.
Midday.
About.
About midday. That's the time.
Passengers.
Quarrel.
A passenger's quarrel. That's the action.
Young man.
Hat. Long thin neck.
A young man with a hat and plaited cord rout it. That's the chief character.
Person.
A person.
A person. That's the second character.
Me.
Me.
Me. That's the third character, narrator.
Words.
Words.
Words. That's what I said.
Seat vacant.
Seat taken.
A seat that was vacant and then taken. That's the result.
The gare Saint-Lazare.
An hour later.
A friend.
A button.
Another phrase heard. That's the conclusion.
Logical conclusion.

>>18571225
It's tautologically true, he doesn't need to prove it. A problem is an unsolved question (the fact that it is unsolved implying that it can be solved*, thus logical because anything that can be solved [ie given a truth value] is necessarily logical), ergo all problems are dependent upon logic.

*This is true because any question is either simple (yes/no) or complex (a multitude of yes/nos which are linked together linguistically/conceptually), in both cases the question is composed of binary logical units, thus an unsolved question can, theoretically, be solved via the logical method of manipulation of logical units.

>>18571959
>the fact that it is unsolved implying that it can be solved*,
>everything I say is dependent on this
prove it

>>18571959
>It's tautologically true
no it's not, lol
>he doesn't need to prove it
yes you do kek
You're mom is sucking on my fat cock right now, this is tautologically true because if it exists as a possible act in physical reality then it can happen, and if it hasn't happened yet it will happened (you're "reasoning"), that time is now.
>A problem is an unsolved question
>the fact that it is unsolved implying that it can be solved*
HOLY KEK
>ergo all problems are dependent upon logic.
the problem didn't exist because of logic, and without it's existence there's no logical basis to solve it, since it doesn't exist, therefore logic is dependent on problems (literally your retard reasoning).
Wether logic is or is not something or some not the problem exists.
>*This is true because any question is either simple (yes/no) or complex (a multitude of yes/nos which are linked together linguistically/conceptually), in both cases the question is composed of binary logical units, thus an unsolved question can, theoretically, be solved via the logical method of manipulation of logical units.
>because a question can be reduced to a binary proposition all complex questions can be answered with an algorithm of logic
literally what is turing completeness
read a book, nigger.

>>18570503
I'm thinking Man = a
Mankind = A
Mankind(man)= Mankind
Man = Mankind
But this instantiation is a story.
The first man is the whole of mankind but after which cannot be said to be mankind because the offspring of Adam introduces not Adam as mankind.
Mankind =/= Man
Preconditions are a multitude.
It is raining >>> Logic:
Water is falling.
P is Q
Where P is a noun Q is a verb.
P = P
Q = Q
But P(q) = P'
And Q(p)= Q'
Water(falling from the sky) = Rain
Falling(rain)= raining
As far as we think of thing doing something the thing must be the doer or subject of action.
Nouns themselves are only in imaginary frozen instances separable from the identifiable force of verbs and verbs are inseparable from nouns. The motion of an object cannot be impressed on the mind without the object itself also being impressed on the mind. However circuitry itself is capable of abstracting the stopping force of vehicles and redirecting it to pure heat thus doing exactly that. It is physically possible while psychically impossible. Thus we can assume such things do happen in nature and must be logically available if we believe the logical positivist guess.

I'm reading Hume and a little bit of Carnap right now trying to process my study by shitposting with y'all

>>18570376
Weird how you never hear these statements in actual meaningful conversations, and only in sophistry

>>18572593
Maybe because people strive to be understood in meaningful conversations, you know? Because everyday conversations are for everyday things, not probing the limits of language. Just a thought.

>>18571287
This actually does point to a deficiency in logic when it comes to explaining reality. Let’s define your girlfriend as: your girlfriend that exists. She exists and is your girlfriend by definition. But alas, definitions don’t grant existance.

>>18571275
>Admit you don't know,
Admit I don't know which?

>>18572094
>the problem didn't exist because of logic,
If the problem is apprehended, conceived of by the mind, it necessarily exists logically.

>>18572094
>the problem didn't exist because of logic
The problem cannot exist without logic. This doesn't mean that logic created the problem itself. Problems are dependent upon a logical ground, but logic can exist without problems (for example, when we solve a problem, that solution is logical but does not imply an additional problem, ergo we have a logical system without any problems. But if we have a problem, then that problem is necessarily logical and permits a theoretical logical solution).
>literally what is turing completeness
Not relevant to our discussion. We're speaking about, theoretically, whether a question in general *could* be answered, not specific questions which may contain infinitely regressive terms which cannot be answered. These questions, in theory, could be answered, but in practice they can't. The practically unsolvable problems still have logic at their core.

>>18571106
A falsehood can equal a falsehood.

>>18571136
logical contradictions. a square circle could exist in an illogical reality. logic isnt a neccesity

>>18573735
>logical contradictions. a square circle could exist in an illogical reality. logic isnt a neccesity
A square circle exists as a logical concept, even if its existence is only "within the mind".

A=not A'
A'=not A
both are only defined as "not being the other thing" so the definitions could be swapped, which makes them both the same thing

>>18573747
im saying it could actually exist and be true in an illogical reality

>>18571106
>given A is a proposition: A is not A
>two more steps

this is fetish logic, so just as numerology is fetish number theory, this is logology

>>18573781
If it exists (A) then it exists logically (A=A). All existence is logical existence. There is no way around this.

>>18573803
how does a square circle not break A=A?
>All existence is logical existence
why?

>>18573823
If there is a thing, a conception, an object of consciousness (A), then that thing necessarily possesses the identity of itself (A=A). It may seem trivial, but a failure to understand the law of identity is the cause of all insanity, madness and bad thinking (A=not A).

>>18570348
As Heraclitus said,
> You cannot pound your hard cock into the same sugar teen supple butt tight pussy twice, for other sex spirits are continually flowing on
So this does indeed prove that a pound of sugar is not a pound of sugar.

>>18573823
>>18573848
Basically, "A" is consciousness of a thing in the moment. "A=A" is consciousness over time and is related to memory, continuity and character.

>>18573848
why couldnt something outside of our conception be A=not A? hell, what if there is a A=not A that is concievable but that we havent come across yet?
>then that thing necessarily possesses the identity of itself
why neccesarily?
>but a failure to understand the law of identity is the cause of all insanity, madness and bad thinking (A=not A).
again, whatever problems the reality of A=not A would create could be solved in illogical means

>>18570287
How can someone think this to be the case

>>18573898
>why couldnt something outside of our conception be A=not A?
We only know the world through our conceptions of it. If an illogical concept like "A=not-A" is conceived, logic, or A=A, immediately applies to it.
>why neccesarily?
If a thing didn't possess the identity of itself, it would be a different thing. Any thing that we are talking about is what it is and isn't what it isn't. It seems like understanding this would be the simplest thing in the world, but experience shows that perhaps it isn't that simple.
>illogical means
There really are no such means because, as I have demonstrated, all thinking and existence is logical.

>>18574140
>We only know the world through our conceptions of it.
im talking about the parts that we dont know. why couldnt something illogical exist there?
>If a thing didn't possess the identity of itself, it would be a different thing. Any thing that we are talking about is what it is and isn't what it isn't.
this is the case only within logic. youre only saying logic is neccesary for reality because its logical
>all thinking and existence is logical.
you havent demonstrated this or its neccesity at all. is logic neccesary because of logic? then couldnt illogic neccesitate itself because illogic?

>>18571864
holy fucking brain-rot. you think the internet could function on syllogisms?

>>18570481
>A { A(a) = A
where to read more?

>>18573106
nice job moving the goal post, very effective argument strategy-- NOT.

>>18573723
except that saying A = A is always true is axiomatic, meaning it's not provable, therefore it's not inherently a falsehood unless you're saying A = A is initially true always, which is was we were testing.

>>18573767
A = ~A' = ~(~A)
A = A
similarly A' = A'
so what?

>>18570215
Hegel is usually read as denying A = A. Process philosophers like Deleuze and Whitehead can arguably be seen as denying it as well, since they think process is prior to identity and (for Deleuze at least) this process is something which differs from itself.

Philosophers who deny A = A typically do so to give an account of change. A = A as a logical law assumes a static logic (neither objects nor truth-values change). But it seems like the world is full of changing things. If an apple (A) rots and becomes soil, and soil is not an apple, then we have an instance of A becoming not-A. But how can A become not-A if A = A? Static logic has a hard time dealing with change and becoming; you tend to run into sorites paradoxes. But static logic is still very useful. Ultimately it depends on the expressive power you want your logic to have.

>>18574379
>im talking about the parts that we dont know. why couldnt something illogical exist there?
The parts that we don't know are known as "the parts that we don't know". Any "unknown parts" are known as "unknown parts". And any known thing (even if it is known as "unknown") is logically known, even if it is illogical. Logic provides us with omniscience.
>this is the case only within logic.
There is nothing outside of logic. Logic is all. I have demonstrated this. It is possible to *deny* that there is nothing outside of logic, but that denial doesn't have anything to do with logic and is emotion-based.
>is logic neccesary because of logic?
Logic is everything. It is how a mind works and the creator of all existence. However, it isn't necessary to *value* logic. It's possible to value being illogical, though the decision to do this would itself necessarily be based on logic. What a paradox!
>couldnt illogic neccesitate itself because illogic?
Illogic is a phantom. It only exists as a logical concept. It doesn't exist in practice.

>>18570075
I don't believe A=A
BAM disproven (from my perspective)

>>18575132
BAM?

>>18575132
Any disproof of A=A can only do so by making use of it and thereby affirming it.

>>18574403
Chris Langan has recursive logic papers but they are too intense 4 me.
The philosophy of identity is the field to see.
I haven't found much yet since I'm barely getting into Epistemology. Me arguing against the antiphilosophical philosophy club, The Vienna Circle, has brought me into that statement. I think of this Heraclitus quote in pic related. There's a Heraclitus book that spans all of philosophy inspired by Heraclitus written by Professor Kahn and discussed to me by a friend who read it.

Just thought of A= master, a = student,
Master(student)= Student becomes the master

Zeus killing Kronos is a big archetype too.

>>18570013
Didn't Heidegger talk about this?

>this thread

god why are c*ntinentals like this

>>18576101
>Chris Langan
this guy's paper on "cognitive universe" or whatever was utter trash. these papers better be redeeming
but also
>recursive logic
>The philosophy of identity
pic related
>>18576127
>still perpetuating the "analytic"/"continental" narrative.
see: https://www.google.com/books/edition/An_Introduction_to_Metaphysics/D24YAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover

>>18576181
>I have healed the anal./cont. divide

>>18576191
more like exposed it for a shame it always has been.

>>18576191

also see Russell's essay "Mysticism and Logic". Same shit, different day.

>>18576221
am 8p

>>18576181
>still perpetuating the "analytic"/"continental" narrative.

>links me conty bullshit

classic

>>18576498
it's unironically a huge influence on Russell's perspective. how is that conty? see >>18576234

Read Plato's Sophist.

>>18574140
>If a thing didn't possess the identity of itself, it would be a different thing.
lol someone hasn't read difference and repetition.

>>18570287
Shallow materialist take
He doesn't know the sugar is just a reflection of the forms

Just thought about this the other day and came to the conclusion that the whole universe is replaced with another slightly different one with conceivable moment of time.

>>18576551
>read this sophist's...
no

>>18571275
>Meanwhile actually solving mathematical problems has inherently advanced my abilities, particularly to reason, and see poor reasoning.
Math doesn't help you do any of that though.

>>18570013
From nothing comes nothing.

>>18574460
>saying A = A is always true is axiomatic, meaning it's not provable
A = A can be proved by anyone with a functioning mind.

>>18570189
>SEX AND CHARACTER: Second Part, Chapter VII: Logic, Ethics and the Self.
I was thinking of making a thread for the purpose of analysing each paragraph in (at least the first half) of this chapter. The whole book is really dense but it seems like this chapter especially is really worth understanding and discussing.

>>18576912
>From nothing comes nothing.
No such thing as nothing.

>>18577008
That's the follow up to the premise, yeah.

/soi/ is laughing at us.

>>18576934
No the first A is different than the second A, they are made of different pixels.

>>18577057
Let them laugh. They are just bags of chemicals reacting to stimuli, they aren't even conscious.

>>18574596
you just have to use calculus and model A as an infinite series function, very not static

>>18576912
/sci/chads? its fucking over.

>>18577130
They stand for the same thing. An object of consciousness. They are merely symbols.

>>18577229
Sounds like philosophy mumbo jumbo. They are arrays of light on a screen. They are clearly different A's.

>>18576912
I've proven multiple times that the square root of 2 is rational, and therefore the proof it is irrational
>>18576934
prove it then, oh great minded one.

A=A and A=/=A are nonsensical; they say nothing.

>>18577412
A = B
>That which defines A also define B
>def of A: A is such a thing that it is not defined as it is defined
>A = A?
>Does that which defines A also define A?
>...

>>18577391
>prove it then, oh great minded one.
Are you saying that you haven't got a functioning mind?

>>18577563
correct, so do it for me.

>>18577578
I'm afraid that no one can do anything for you.

>>18577624
i'm a machine that checks if a proof is closed.
but cannot create proofs.

>>18577631
If you can check that a proof is closed, you can verify that A = A.

>>18570013
> WOWZERS! SUCH LOGIC!!! XDDDDD I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE AND LOGIC!1!

>>18577412
They describe consciousness (logic).

>>18577391
I've proven multiple times that the square root of 2 is rational,
> I've proven the quantity of an incommensurable expression
LOL NO.

>>18570013
It's justified transcendentally; proven on its on disjunctive syllogism/contraction.

>>18576769
plato didn't believe in platonic forms. that's a neoplatonist invention

>>18574596
>If an apple (A) rots and becomes soil, and soil is not an apple
This is a misapplication of identity to phenomenal reality, which is where most misunderstanding of identity stems from. "Apple" does not become "Soil." An Apple becomes a Soil, the indefinite article actually adds an implicit object which is neither Apple nor Soil, it is an object which is merely constituted by a certain mass of atoms (but it could be anything else, depending on how the human mind wants to categorize the object). Therefore, an illustrious object (a mass of atoms) loses the property of Apple and gains the property of Soil. Apple does not become Soil. Identity is implicitly maintained through the use of indefinite articles.

>>18577676
>implying this thread has anything to do with science
pure pseud

>>18574596
>>18578078
Nor is this object supposedly "challenged" by the sorites paradox; for this promiscuous mass of atoms, or whatever other vague object we wish to examine, is never either wholly Apple nor wholly Soil. Given the promiscuous and uncertain nature of its ontological status, it can possess attributes of both "Apple" and "Soil" (and whatever other properties it might have) simultaneously, yet in different magnitudes depending on its exact situation in space and time.

>>18577756
no. nonono. computationalists gtfo