Is the self all that can be known to exist?

[Excited Penguin]

Nor can I.  I can certainly assess specific contradictions and suggest that they may be subtle this or thats, but without complete knowledge I can;t possibly make the claim that no contradictions exist or that my answer to any given contradiction - or indeed my set of answers to sets of contradictions, is an answer to -every- contradiction that may exist.  

The self might be just such a thing.  I have no way of arguing the self in except by self referential statements regarding the self.  May as well say the self exists because the self exists.  OTOH< I don;t think that it does, which presents a potential paradox that's just as difficult to account for.

Why do you think the self doesn't exist ? 

It's an equivocation because it's equivocal.

The LOI and the LNC are both expressions of the same law. The first in positive form, the second in negative form. That something has to be something and that something cannot be not something are both expressing the same thing.

What do you mean by equivocal ? 

They are not the same law. They are two separate laws. NC and EM may follow from ID in some sense but they are all separate.

[Edwardo Piet]

This is my verbose rambley analysis:

A = A
I am what I am.
What I do is what I do.
My thinking is my thinking.
My knowing is my knowing.

My self-awareness of my own thinking is what I mean when I say I know that I am thinking.

I know that I am thinking because I have self awareness of my thinking.
I know my thinking is my thinking because I know A=A.
I know that I must exist in order to think because I know my thinking presupposes my existence.

I know my thinking presupposes my existence because I cannot think without my thinking being my thinking and that is what I mean by "I exist". I mean that I am what I am or A=A.

[Edwardo Piet]

What do you mean by equivocal ? 

They are not the same law. They are two separate laws. NC and EM may follow from ID in some sense but they are all separate.

I just mean the usual dictionary definition. I'm saying the logic is fallacious by virtue of being ambiguous/equivocal.

Sure, if you want to say they're by definition different laws because they're labelled that way, fine. But my point is they both are expressing the same truth in two different ways. That something has to be what it is and that something cannot be what it isn't is two sides of the same coin. The first positive, the second negative. They're in harmony and could easily be relabelled as one law. I don't know what you'd call it. Perhaps the positive and negative form of the law of identity. But it's confusing and unnecessary, so it helps to think of them as separate laws. But remember then you're talking about the concepts instead of the fact that something is what it is/is not what it it not. Which is basically the same truth expressed positively and negatively.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yet it's a fact of the world where people disagree on things.

The truth is independent of people and their disagreement.

Facts are independent of people. Truths, on the other hand, are very subjective.

Am I equivocating? Perhaps.

[Edwardo Piet]

Why do you think the self doesn't exist ? 

What's your definition of "the self" EP?

[Edwardo Piet]

The truth is independent of people and their disagreement.

Facts are independent of people. Truths, on the other hand, are very subjective.

Am I equivocating? Perhaps.

You're only equivocating if you accept my own premise

If you don't explicitly reject it when I've offered it I'll assume you've accepted it [emoji6]

Hence why my reaction in my head when debating with folks often is "If you haven't told me you have rejected my premise when I offered it... then what are you not getting? It's okay to tell me you don't accept it, folks. But we can't even get going until you accept or reject my premise. I've taken my side, what's yours? [emoji6]"

It's easy for folks to attack my conclusion when they haven't addressed my premise or offered their own

Telling me it's not a premise won't get them anywhere. It's my premise. If they reject it they only have to say, lol. How else will I know?

[Whateverist]

I would have thought knowing ones self is one of the harder things there is to do, otherwise more would.

[Excited Penguin]

Why do you think the self doesn't exist ? 

What's your definition of "the self" EP?

That through which you experience the world.

[Edwardo Piet]

The experiencer?

[bennyboy]

Can the self be known to exist? I don't think it is obvious.

It depends what you mean by "exist."  I take "self" as a label for qualia, and it's pretty apparent.