RE: Dialetheism
November 17, 2016 at 7:27 pm
(This post was last modified: November 17, 2016 at 7:29 pm by 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.
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.
