Dialetheism

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes because that's what I mean by "irrational". Hence why you're equivocating if you disagree.

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.

It doesn't matter. It's still either/or rather than both.

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

No, it's because that is the absolute law and you're equivocating if you disagree. 

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?  

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.  

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

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.

[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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ham, you're doing it again.  How many threads are you going to shit on before you learn something?

[Edwardo Piet]

You're equivocating again.

You're confusing the conceptualization of absolute laws with the absolute laws themselves again.

You're making use/mention errors again.

Something is true when it corresponds to reality.

You're literally asking me to rationally justify rationality. That makes no sense. A=A is the premise.

I've already dealt with this. You've got things backwards. You must exist and be yourself first before you can rationally justify it. Asking me how I know that something is what it is makes no sense. Reality first, then knowledge.

[The Grand Nudger]

You make alot of absolute proscriptive statements from a provisional and descriptive system, buddy. Good luck with that.

[Expired]

A fun sort of -theism. Are you an adialetheist or do you believe a statement can be both true and false at the same time ? How do you reconcile contradictions in that way, if you do ? What does this say about the nature of negation? Is negation absolute or relative - id est, is it more of a descriptive or defining quality? If it is descriptive, does that mean falsehood is a subset of truth and that truth is an ubiquitous qualia? 

Here are some examples of true contradictions that dialetheists accept [sic](Wikipedia -  ):

The only certain knowledge we have outside of our immediate experience is that there is no certain knowledge outside of our immediate experience.

"All statements are true" is a false statement.

"There are no absolutes" is an absolute.

[Edwardo Piet]

You make alot of absolute proscriptive statements from a provisional and descriptive system, buddy.  Good luck with that.

Again, remember, I'm not talking about a system or conceptualization of logic.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, sure you're not, lol. I mean, nevermind that that sentence is completely nonsensical or anything. If you;re not talking about a system or a concept of logic you're not talking about anything, lol. Whole lotta fuckin words wasted on nothing.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes I'm not I'm talking about how the logical absolutes =/= the conceptualization of them. That's why they're absolute.

Whatever is, is (A=A).

That's true regardless of how we do or don't conceptualize something or nothing or anything. I don't have to know it, it just is. But that's why I know it. It's the one thing everyone knows because, again, "I think therefore I am" presupposes "I am what I am" and "I think what I think" or IOW A=A.

You're acting like I'm arrogant for claiming absolute knowledge regarding the one truth that is absolutely absolute lol. I'd be deluded to deny A=A that would be saying "reality is not reality", I'd be denying reality. Again, reality first, then knowledge. I must exist to know that I exist, that's kind of the point. Anyone who says A can = anything other than A is confused. A thing kind of has to be a thing.

[The Grand Nudger]

Right, that's nice Ham, the rules are true because the rules are true, especially in instances where the rules appear to be busted.  Not a system, not a concept.... none of that.  

I mean really?  It's like arguing with the motherfucker with the grenade pin and a twinkle in his eye, lol?

I appreciate your dogged acceptance of what you consider to be logical absolutes. They help us to sift the trash of our many claims. I see no reason to argue with you or discuss it further.