Saerules Wrote:By 'tautology', i've been referring to the logical definition (a statement that is true by necessity of its logical form)
And that's the case with the proposition "I am me". It's necessarily true by virtue of its logical form.
The words "I" and "me" have the same semantics -- just as the words "he" and "him" have the same semantics (they just change words depending of the grammatical position in a sentence). Seeing as we have to accept the Law of Identity to be self-evident (to deny it is to completely undermine reason itself, and leaves us incapable of logical thought), if follows necessarily that I == me (I am me).
To say that it is not necessarily true that I am me, or that the proposition "I am me because I am me" is not a strong argument because it uses circular reasoning would be like saying that it is not necessarily true that A is A, or that the proposition "A is A because A is A" is not a strong argument because it uses circular reasoning.
If you accept the law of identity (A ≡ A), then you have to accept that I am (necessarily) me. If you don't accept the law of identity, or that I am not (necessarily) me, then you're talking nonsense.
