When discussing the Law of identity you can accept ancient POV's, Plato, Aristotle etc or you can expand on their thoughts and challenge the limitations they have subscribed to.
So please explain what limits they have subscribed to?
Please explain what it is you think they have missed, and has been missed ever since, that convinces you that the Law of Identity is wrong?
And, if you can, please do so by not adhering to it yourself?
X is X is not the same as X=X is one such challenge, and perhaps another "discussion" thread topic.
eg X is X, but X can equal Y
This is not a challenge to it at all.
Using two different labels (X and Y) doesn’t alter things.
You are also wandering down a straw man argument, in that I never said that they are the same, only that in mathematical terms (I.e. analogy) you would be claiming that X = X + something else.
But if you can solve the mathematical equation X = X + 1 then I think you might be on to something.
Otherwise my point stands: refuting “X is X” (I.e. the Law of Identity) is a fool’s errand.
Objectivity and what is the minimum required to achieve it, was the subtopic of the discussion.
Not that you have yet actually provided any valid argument as to the relevance of objectivity, and have ignored the refutation of what you did post.
In that context X is X only because it is can be said that X is not Y ( or anything else) by implication.
This is the Law of Non-Contradiction: something can not both be and not be.
I.e. X can not be both X and not-X.
We might use different labels for X (e.g. X and Y) and so trivially think that X can be both X and Y, but the label doesn’t alter what it is that has been labelled.
And beneath the label, X is X, and X can not be anything else.
Argument:
If a thinker is unable to determine the validity of a statement such as X is X he is calling on authority and is no longer able to be objective.
If you think “X is X” is true simply because someone else has said so...
It is not sufficient to merely accept a statement as valid simply because it is deemed a law declared by someone else. It is important that you evolve your own thinking to objectively self derive that law if you can.
One does not derive axioms.
But they can be falsified, and if you can provide a single example of where “X is X” is false, or (since you brought it up) where something can be both what it is and what it isn’t, then you may be on to something.
So perhaps, in your own words explain how you have derived the law of identity... and demonstrate your degree of objectivity in the matter in the process.
It is, or should be, self-evident.
Thought can not exist without it.
Sense can not be made without it (possibly suggesting a correlation between those who think it is false and those who don’t make sense).
If you are unable to do so then you need to acknowledge your limitations.
I acknowledge my limitation in being unable to derive a self-evident axiom which enables us to make sense of things, and without which we wouldn’t even be able to have this conversation.
Are you now going to explain how any of this alters whether determinism is the objective reality of an abstracted universe in which we have premised determinism to be the reality?
Adherence to the doctrine of fatalism...
If by fatalism you mean determinism, we must adhere to that doctrine when considering the abstracted universe in which we have premised that it is deterministic.
To do otherwise is to set up a deterministic universe for discussion and then claim that it is not deterministic.
To do that wilfully would be dishonest.
To do it through ignorance would highlight just how incapable one is of holding a meaningful conversation, given that it is the accepted premise of this thread, and has been from the outset, and not only of this thread but nearly all the others on this matter.
...whether secular or religious removes the possibility of objectivity simply because it removes the capacity to make genuine choices.
And again you have confirmed that you accept that determinism (or fatalism as you are now referring to it) removes the capacity to make genuine choices.
Your side track into issues of objectivity (as applied to human thinking) is thus irrelevant.
It does not alter that the abstracted universe we are considering is objectively deterministic.
So is your argument now that determinism (or fatalism) is false because you think we do have genuine choice?
If so then you are an
incompatibilist, and most likely a Libertarianism (just to give you a label).
No doubt you will react adversely to that labelling, as I know you so very much want to be a compatibilist.
And before you start bleating on about how you are only referring to
my version of determinism, may I remind you again that there is only one version.
Therefore fatalism falls on its own sword due to being unfalsifiable and unable to be tested.
see post #604
1. how is determinism (which you have taken to call fatalism) unfalsifiable?
It is, after all, merely the philosophy that every effect is completely determined by its cause.
This translates to: if you know everything about the past moment, and know everything about the governing laws, you can know the future moment.
How is this unfalsifiable?
All you need to do is find a deterministic system where this is false.
2. You are again trying to argue that determinism is false, yet we have premised in this discussion that the universe being discussed IS deterministic.
Deal with that, please.
Is free will possible in a deterministic universe.
Your arguments recently have all suggested that you think the answer is “no”.
Is this correct, or are you going to roll back some of what you have said to try and crowbar in the possibility, despite what you have repeatedly said?
I’ve ignored your last stupid comment as it simply doesn’t warrant consideration.
So, to get back to the programme...
We are considering a universe that is deterministic.
This is the objective reality of the universe we are considering.
We know this because we have set it up this way through the premise, and we have agreed to it.
It’s deterministic nature is thus the objective truth and reality of its nature.
And there is only one determinism: the effect is completely determined by the cause.
In this universe that we have set up, is free will possible.
If you think that the universe we have set up doesn’t allow the genuine choice you think free will requires, then your answer should be “no”.
And you would be an incompatibilist.
What is your answer to the question posed in the thread title?
Is it “yes” or “no”?
Note: this is not a thread that questions whether determinism/fatalism is true or not, only whether free will is possible in a deterministic universe.
So please, stick with the programme.
