Dialetheism

[Edwardo Piet]

The rules are not true because the rules of true. The law of identity is the premise.

Are you seriously asking me to justify a logical absolute rationally? That's backwards.

Why would you appreciate a dogged acceptance of something considered to be absolute?

Logical absolutes are absolute. If you're doubting the law of identity you're doubting that something is what it is. I don't have a dogged acceptance, you have a dogged denial of absolute knowledge of absolute reality and you're asking me justify it when ontology is prior to epistemology. First we exist, then we come to know our existence. First there is reality, and then there is knowledge of it.

[Angrboda]

From Beyond The Limits Of Thought by Graham Priest

[Edwardo Piet]

It's very amusing. Redefining things so that something that means the very opposite of something can mean it itself, lol.

The philosophers who recognize that something is what it is regardless of the label are of course, sound. It's not to say that dialetheism is wrong, per se. It's to say that it's silly because it's really just a relabelling of the same truth. The fact that things can be re-conceptualized in such a way so it becomes a tautology to say that something is true and false at the same time doesn't change the fact that something is something and "if something is true and false at the same time then something is true and false at the same time" is merely a relabelling of "If A then A" or A=A.

[Longhorn]

[x] Fuck all polls

^^^^^