Dialetheism

[Edwardo Piet]

That;s not exactly a reliable or rational standard for what an equivocation is.  Nor does any of the bits I snipped help...in that regard.

I wasn't giving you the definition. I was saying that if you disagree with me it's because you're equivocating.

That's not a statement that you'll be able to justify rationally.

The logical absolutes don't need justifying rationally. They're the premise for rationality and justification. You can't have anything at all without anything at all being anything at all. Without A=A.

Again, not a reliable or rational description of an equivocatiuon, and in this instance a statement that you could only rationally maintain if you had possession of compl;ete knowledge.  Which you don't...just in case....you thought you did?

Again, I'm saying that the only way to disagree with A=A is to equivocate. To call "A" "not A" doesn't change the fact A=A.

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

You don;t know that -rationally-.  You can't, bvcause you;'d have to mount a circular argument, justifying reason by reference to the rules of reason....which is irrational.

No circular would be if I said "The Law of Identity is true because it can't be not true and it can't be not true because it its true". I'm not saying that. I'm saying that truth itself and nothing at all and even knowledge itself can't make any sense without A=A. "A=A" is a premise prior even before knowledge itself. I know "A=A" is true because that something is what it is is the premise of reality and logic, which is prior to the correspondence theory of truth being what corresponds to that reality, which is prior to any theory of knowledge about knowing that reality. A=A is the premise. You can't actually even disagree with this premise. All you can do is relabel it. You can say that I don't know that A=A but you're saying I don't know that something is something. And that literally makes no sense whatsoever. Identity is one thing that is known. It's prior even to "I think therefore I am" because that itself is based on one's own identity. I necessarily know that I exist because of the truth of the law of identity which would be true even if I did not exist. Self-referential knowledge is merely based upon a subset of the truth of the law of identity. "I think therefore I am because I must exist to think" is based upon "and what I think is what I think" and "what I am is what I am" or "A=A".

Sort of trying to help you realize that you don;t grasp it rationally either, that you can,t because to do so would be irrational.  Rationally grasping a concept by irrational means is a dialetheistic situation.

I've thought about all this before. It's sweet that you're trying to help me grasp it rationally but A=A is the premise. It doesn't need to be grasped. It's not circular. It's it. "A=A" is not a circle.

Denying A=A is literally denying "whatever is, is" or denying reality itself. Reality is prior to knowledge. You have to exist to know. You have to have truth to know the truth.