Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 14, 2024, 6:36 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why am I me?
#31
RE: Why am I me?
Saerules Wrote:Here's another example of an argument supported by itself.

"The Bible is the word of God."
Why do you say that?
"Because it is written in the Bible."
Why does it being written in the Bible make you think so?
"The Bible is infallible."
Why do you think it is infallible?
-repeat from 1 indefinitely-

The above is just as self evident, and just as faith based.

I'm sure you can understand the logical difference between "the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so" and "bachelors are unmarried men". The former uses circular reasoning; the latter is a tautology. They are not the same types of argument. The claim "I am me" is a tautology, like the second proposition, not circular reasoning, like the first.
Reply
#32
RE: Why am I me?
Yahadreas Wrote:I'm sure you can understand the logical difference between "the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so" and "bachelors are unmarried men". The former uses circular reasoning; the latter is a tautology. They are not the same types of argument. The claim "I am me" is a tautology, like the second proposition, not circular reasoning, like the first.
I admit, I used to see them as different arguments (circular reasoning and tautology). Now I see them as the same thing written two different ways. OH! By 'tautology', i've been referring to the logical definition (a statement that is true by necessity of its logical form), not the colloquial lack of style (saying the same thing twice). While the 'type' of argument does change (you are right about that), the intent of the argument is almost always the same, even if unintentional.

Logic is a process that takes statements to be true (if-), and then works things out from point of a particular statement being true. Ie: If all dogs are mountains, and all mountains are blue, then all dogs are blue.

If we fail to precede such statements with 'if', we are stating that a thing is true. Ie: All Dogs are mountains. All mountains are blue. Therefore all dogs are blue.

One can even turn it into a circular set, though this particular one feels choppy saying it like this. Ie: All dogs are mountains. "why?" Because all mountains are blue. "Why are all mountains blue?" All dogs are blue. "Why are all dogs blue?"-repeat-

It is a self-supported circle of logic. Each of the fields, though untrue, support each other when reasoning for them is inquired. No progress is ever made for the person with the belief, little thinking is required for any argument that supports itself. To the person who believes the argument, it must be true, and often not a word will be considered against it.

Take tautologies now... a statement is taken as true (ie: I am me) because a thing is said that must be true. Then when asked why it must be true, the statement is repeated, often written differently. When asked why this time, it returns to the first answer. Observe, if you would, the many ways this can be abused, and why I think so little of such arguments:

"Why is the sky blue?" Because it is. "Why is it?" Because it is not not blue. "Why is it not not blue?" Because it is. "Why is it?" "Because it is not not blue".

Never, in any of that... just as with circular reasoning... do we come to find out any reason being the the thing suggested (in this case, the sky being blue). Why not go to the field of science, and pull human eyesight and how light reflects off of Earth's atmosphere? Why not suggest instead that it is not always blue, as can perhaps be witnessed at other times? Nothing is challenged... nothing is solved... nothing is gained by either party. Now let's compare these both:

All dogs are mountains. "why are all dogs mountains?" Because all mountains are blue. "Why are all mountains blue?" All dogs are blue. "Why are all dogs blue?"-repeat-
"Why is the sky blue?" Because it is. "Why is it?" Because it is not not blue. "Why is it not not blue?" Because it is. "Why is it?" "Because it is not not blue".-repeat-

Now a real example of the two in practice:

The Bible is the word of God. "Why do you think it is the word of God?" Because the Bible tells us so. "But why do you believe what the Bible says?" The Bible is infallible. "Why do you say that?" -repeat-
"Why am I me?" Because you are not not you. "Why am I not not me?" Because you are you. "But why am I me?" Because you are not not you.

^-- these two arguments... they are the same thing, written with a differing number of clauses. One is a circle that just keeps coming around to itself. The other is a circle that hits three things before it gets back to itself.

I therefore argue, that tautology is another word for circular reasoning. Tiny Tiger

And further that neither of them are to the gain to anyone understanding the world.
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
Reply
#33
RE: Why am I me?
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.
Reply
#34
RE: Why am I me?
Actually, if we're being gramatically picky, it should be 'I am I', as the verb 'to be' doesn't take an object, it merely has a complement. Not entirely relevant, just a bit of pedantry for you there.
'We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.' H.L. Mencken

'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.

'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain

'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
Reply
#35
RE: Why am I me?
Yahadreas Wrote:and that's the case with the proposition "I am me". It's necessarily true by virtue of its logical form.

Exactly.

Quote: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).

I (of course) accept that I am me. But I do not accept answering a question as to why this is so with repeating the statement that it I am so... that is what I am criticizing here, noting it is identical to any other form of 'circular reasoning'.

Quote: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.

I am not disputing the truth of the statement 'I am me'... I am disputing the reasoning behind it (by asking "why are you you, I have assumed that you are you to begin with. Observe, if I ask you why is the sky blue, I have assumed that it is so in my question). If all you have for reasoning that you are you... is that you are... then I very strongly argue that you have no idea why you are who you are, or even have no idea who you are to begin with. If all that makes you yourself is that you are... you must be really boring. Like a rock sort of boring.

Quote: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.

I happen to have written a fair deal on aspects of identity (ie: name, location, time, definition, subjectivity). I consider identity to be the collection of everything that describes us. If the only thing you have to describe yourself is that you=you... I feel very safe in saying that there is nothing to describe, and you are asserting that a thing exists that does not (ie: God is God, because He is God). It is really very weak of the person asserting it... and it is to the benefit of nobody.
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
Reply
#36
RE: Why am I me?
Saerules Wrote:I (of course) accept that I am me. But I do not accept answering a question as to why this is so with repeating the statement that it I am so... that is what I am criticizing here, noting it is identical to any other form of 'circular reasoning'.

How do you prove that A = A? Or that bachelors are unmarried men? With a tautology, the only "argumentation" is re-assertion. It's not a bad argument in these cases. It's only a bad argument when the proposition is not a tautology. I'm sure you can understand that "A = A" is a tautology and that "I am a man" is not (although it is indeed true). Because of this, it is okay to say that "A is A because A is A" but not okay to say that "I am a man because I am a man". Similarly, the proposition "I am me" is of the first kind and the proposition "the Bible is true because the Bible is true" is of the second.

http://www.mcgath.com/weirdthings.html Wrote:Also, he equates tautology with circular reasoning. But these are different; circular reasoning uses a premise to prove itself, while tautology equates a thing to itself. Tautologies are not fallacious, but rather are trivially true (though a disguised tautology can be used in equivocation).

"I am me because I am me" is a tautology and not fallacious. "The Bible is true because the Bible is true" uses circular reasoning and so is fallacious.
Reply
#37
RE: Why am I me?
(October 30, 2010 at 3:45 am)Saerules Wrote: People can prove things in a number of ways that don't make logical sense. What you mean to say, is that 'tautology is the only form of logical proof', is it not?

Nothing that is non-tautological can exist because that would require it to not be itself which means it wouldn't exist. Logical proof is the only form of proof because proof is absolute evidence and the only absolute things are logical things (and so the only things, because relative things either absolutely exist or absolutely don't exist).
Reply
#38
RE: Why am I me?
Why does this thread have me humming "I am the walrus" ?
Reply
#39
RE: Why am I me?
I've been trying to reach the same frame of reference with others around me, and having the same frustration you seem to be having here. The link below is the closest I've come yet to a scientific explanation, but it still leaves one somewhat short of the 1st person explanation. R-e-n-n-a-t Wrote: Being conscious individually, as I assume everyone else is, the question comes to mind; why do I exist from a 1st person point of view? Obviously I couldn't exist from a 3rd person POV, but when I die it'll seem to me as if the world ends; MY world will end. How can I explain this... When you sleep without dreaming everything is nonremembered, and seems 'black'. If death is the same, then it'll be lights out for eternity, and therefore I'm wondering why I'm conscious to begin with. Why me? Why here? Why now? Why at all? etc.

Any answers or ideas? I've asked my friends and family, but they don't really grasp the concept of the question.Thinking
Reply
#40
RE: Why am I me?
I thought this post was dead...
I'm not really sure whether I never got the idea or what.
Hmmm... Time to kill this thread?
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)