Dialetheism

[Edwardo Piet]

To think something is what it is is rational. To think something is what it is not is irrational.

Perhaps, but is it inaccurate?  

Yes because that's what I mean by "irrational". Hence why you're equivocating if you disagree. I already start with the premise of A=A which means anyone who disagrees is merely equivocating. You can redefine and relabel it so "A= not A" but that's just a relabelling of "A=A". Dialetheism is just a redefining and a relabelling of things so that things can be both true and false... it doesn't change the fact that all it can do is relabel and redefine things. "A=A" represents everything being itself. The fact dialetheism defines itself in such a way so that a statement seen as true from one perspective and false from another is labelled as something being "both true and false" doesn't change the fact that it's still a case of something only being true and false from different perspectives at different times and everything still cannot be both true and false from all perspectives at all times. A=A is still not invalidated. It cannot be.

This all further demonstrates that you're still making the error whereby you're talking about different conceptualizations of the logical absolutes rather than the logical absolutes themselves. The truth of what "A=A" represents, the law of identity, applies to everything, including different conceputalizations of it. You could say to me "If something is true and false at the same time then something is true and false at the same time." But again  notice how it's just another expression of if A then A or A=A. It's just a relabelling and a definition. It doesn't actually make things completely true and false at the same time in the normal sense. Dialetheism is an alternative definition and conceptualiztion. It doesn't change any logical absolutes themselves.

You'll make progress when you realize that "A=A" represents the absolute fact that something is what it is, regardless of what silly language games are played or if someone wishes to redefine things so they can be both true and false in a different sense, from a different perspective (equivocation).

Right, thats the point that dialetheism makes.  Are you agreeing...or disagreeing...and think about that for a moment...since you may be invoking a dialetheistic statement either way.

It doesn't matter. It's still either/or rather than both. It's still only viewed differently from a different perspective. To think it's both from multiple perspectives is simply mistaken and an act of equivocation. That's what equivocation is.

If you think "A= not A" can possibly be true then you're simply wrong.

Why, because those are the rules?  Are they the rules?

No, it's because that is the absolute law and you're equivocating if you disagree. All you can do is relabel "something" to mean "not something" or "A" to mean "Not A" it's still the case that something is what it is and A=A even if you call something "not something" or A "not A". It doesn't matter what you call it or how you mess about with language. It doesn't matter what the rules are. This is a logical law that is absolute. You can label it however you want it will still be whatever it will be. Until you understand the use/mention distinction and that the labelling of "A=A" does not =/= the absolute truth of A=A no matter how much you mess about with language, you'll remain confused.

 If dialetheistic statements exist they may not be, and so invoking them is begging the question...which is against the rules, but nevertheless you think it's true.........

No. I know all statements are either true or false, A=A and not A = not A.

That is the premise and the only possible way to express disagreement with it is by relabelling it and equivocating. And you won't actually be disagreeing. Expressing disagreement =/= disagreement. Dialetheism just labels and conceptualizes the same truth differently. How many times have I explained already that conceptualization is irrelevant to the logical absolutes?

(as do I, btw.  Intuitively and by way of a priori statements I also consider such statements to be some subtle sort of -something- illogicval.....but I acknowledge the difficulty in identifying exactly what that is while remaining logical about it)

At least your intuition already knows I'm right even though you don't grasp it rationally yet.