Some Philosophy

[Z.link]

Aristotle's Law of Identity is the basis of many philosophical view points. Basically it states that A is A, which may seem silly, but is actually very complex if you put a lot of thought into it. A is A, something is itself, A red leaf is a red leaf and nothing else. Using this the world has no contradictions, and any thing that seems to contradict itself indicates that your premises are wrong.

The opposite view would be that reality isn't real, that nothing exists.

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.co..._Identity.html

Took the main info from here, if you browse the site, it talks about more philosophies based off of aristotles law, some of them I agree with, some of them I don't.

From a personal view I would go with A is A. It is a more logical way at looking at the world in my mind. What does everyone else think?

[foxkit2409]

I find this highly confusing for my own level of thought.(no I'm not stupid)

[Caelus]

Oh man. It took a while, but now I'm seeing what summers filled with pot smoking can do. I just...can't do this.

[Snowscala_Xx]

unno' pretty complicated stuff you dug up here. Umm soo you're saying if you commited a crime even the lowest of crime such as jaywalking and littering you're a criminal and a criminal is a criminal? @_@. i'm so confused. So a bird is a bird; @_2 does that mean an eagle is a hawk since both are birds? @_@. XD

[Z.link]

You are looking too large, an object can only have one identity. Every characteristic it has is part of its identity, and individual is itself, even though it shares characteristics with others, it does not have the identity of others.

[Variados]

" reality is partial" We do not understand everything around us, and we do not see everything around us or pay attention therefore most of the time we do not get the complete information. We hardly get half if we are lucky enough, but I even doubt that is possible. We as humans collect data that we think we need or want. So, yeah... reality does not exist as a whole... Like a meditation prayer goes " The food I taste is changeable therefore not real. The material I touch is changeable, therefore not real. The things I see are changeable, therefore not real. The things I smell are changeable, therefore not real. The things I hear like the wind are changeable, therefore not real. I am not changeable, therefore I am immortal." The prayer goes something like that, I do not know from heart...but it is something like that. Once you think like that, your perception changes, at the same time reality. Maybe I am not being clear... I like how Aristotles thought...he is one of my favorite philosophers for some reason...but yeah, philosophy is something interesting and entertaining just like staring at the wall.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

The problem with the law of identity is that no one can observe unadulterated reality. Ergo, there is no way to prove the red leaf is the red leaf. Solipsism is no better, though. I pretend to believe my subjective reality more-or-less corresponds with objective reality, because I have no other input to work with. To deny my input would be absurd, but to trust it implicitly would be even more absurd.

[Z.link]

There is no way currently known to ever be able to truly identify everything, therefore mistakes are made, and from these mistakes the contradictions are made. We have a really good knack for making something up to try to explain something even if we are unsure, like anti matter or dark matter for instance.....we don't really have proof of their existance, but they explain somethings so we temporarily except them till a contradiction is made, then we recheck the premices.

I've also thought of the world as a program at one point....imagine everything has its own programming code somewhere, and somehow by altering it something changes its identity. In a way I guess this would move into genetics, but I always thought more of inanimate objects with a code.

Either way, I have changed my views since then, A is A, although to truly identify A to all its traits is impossible with any technology we have today. The universe is vast and amazing, a very interesting topic to look at, it makes it impossible to really and truly view the world, but I still consider Aristotle's identity very logical based on my knowledge, which is all I can do.


-On a side note, I'm really really interested in the hole in the universe they found a while ago, I'm really disapointed we have not heard much on it since. An area void of any form of matter as we know it (even void of the dark matter that we assume is in the vacum of space) is just so amazing, I almost hope it shatters all our theries about space just so we can learn so much more.

[Magisha]

Eh??? I don't exactly get it. . . -___-;;

If a A is A and C is C. . . C could mean lots of things, in scientific terms and other misc. terms. . . Carbon. . . An initial for a name. . . Abbreviation for something. . .

But true everything does have its' own identity. A keyboard is a keyboard, because there are letters and elements to it that humans call a keyboard. . .

Very interesting topic, but slightly confusing for me. . . @___@

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

There is no way currently known to ever be able to truly identify everything, therefore mistakes are made, and from these mistakes the contradictions are made. We have a really good knack for making something up to try to explain something even if we are unsure, like anti matter or dark matter for instance.....we don't really have proof of their existance, but they explain somethings so we temporarily except them till a contradiction is made, then we recheck the premices.

I've also thought of the world as a program at one point....imagine everything has its own programming code somewhere, and somehow by altering it something changes its identity. In a way I guess this would move into genetics, but I always thought more of inanimate objects with a code.

Either way, I have changed my views since then, A is A, although to truly identify A to all its traits is impossible with any technology we have today. The universe is vast and amazing, a very interesting topic to look at, it makes it impossible to really and truly view the world, but I still consider Aristotle's identity very logical based on my knowledge, which is all I can do.


-On a side note, I'm really really interested in the hole in the universe they found a while ago, I'm really disapointed we have not heard much on it since. An area void of any form of matter as we know it (even void of the dark matter that we assume is in the vacum of space) is just so amazing, I almost hope it shatters all our theries about space just so we can learn so much more.

Even the best observation is just an observation, not fact - and everything in your world is nothing but observations. If a mad man observes a four-headed wolf eating a nun, it is exactly as well founded from his perspective as the red leaf on the ground is to yours. Two people can observe one event and come away with two stories, because that one reality has been distorted indelibly by the very act of observing. Reality is impossible to directly observe, ergo all we can possibly have are shards of (maybe) reality.

Eh??? I don't exactly get it. . . -___-;;

If a A is A and C is C. . . C could mean lots of things, in scientific terms and other misc. terms. . . Carbon. . . An initial for a name. . . Abbreviation for something. . .

But true everything does have its' own identity. A keyboard is a keyboard, because there are letters and elements to it that humans call a keyboard. . .

Very interesting topic, but slightly confusing for me. . . @___@

This concept is easier then it sounds.

When they say that an object has identity, they mean that it basically is what it is.

When you see a dog, it is a dog. It is not a mailbox. It is not a random form conjured out of your subconscious. They are basically saying that we can effectively make observations about our world.

[niKopol]

A is A and C is C...

Sounds like how I look at things. Though many things have similarities they also have their differences, even then they are their own thing. Most people look at differences, but I tend to focus similarities more.

But on this subject on reality, could the full reality be the 'super-reality' I heard someone say once? If their really is a reality above this one or more reality, how could we even possibly hope to understand it completely? What would it be like? What would we gain, what would we lose? Is their even a level of reality above this one?

Its thoughts like these that kinda scare me. Like what if... well I think I'll keep this to myself.

[OminousCloud]

The problem with the law of identity is that no one can observe unadulterated reality. Ergo, there is no way to prove the red leaf is the red leaf. Solipsism is no better, though. I pretend to believe my subjective reality more-or-less corresponds with objective reality, because I have no other input to work with. To deny my input would be absurd, but to trust it implicitly would be even more absurd.

I don't think it needs to be proven that the red leaf is the red leaf. Just understood that once you give it an identity it cannot exist as something else.

[CapnJack]

So is that to say that something that has no identity or has not been given an identity doesnt exist at all?

Then if it doesnt exist then should it even be considered "something without an identity".

That right there is an identity in itself and therefore does exist.

Something from nothing is still something.

(whoa, that came out of me?)

[sataned]

sounds to me like this Aristotle fellow was just stating common sense in a complex way
basic... facts...

[Inamorata]

You are looking too large, an object can only have one identity. Every characteristic it has is part of its identity, and individual is itself, even though it shares characteristics with others, it does not have the identity of others.

I'm assuming you mean everything is unique in it's own way, despite simularities. There is usually different ways you can view anything or everything... but there is always going to be a simple answer hidden in front of your eyes.

[Z.link]

So is that to say that something that has no identity or has not been given an identity doesnt exist at all?

Then if it doesnt exist then should it even be considered "something without an identity".

That right there is an identity in itself and therefore does exist.

Something from nothing is still something.

(whoa, that came out of me?)

I think that would be the opposite, A is A would state that just because you can't sense it, doesn't mean its not there. It always is. What you state would be more like....Lets say you have never visited.....siberia or something, how do you know that it exists then if you have never been there to see it? Or if you leave a room and close the door, how do you know its still there? I am by no means an expert or extremely knowledgable about this, I just find it interesting enough to make a post on it and see others views.

Even the best observation is just an observation, not fact - and everything in your world is nothing but observations. If a mad man observes a four-headed wolf eating a nun, it is exactly as well founded from his perspective as the red leaf on the ground is to yours. Two people can observe one event and come away with two stories, because that one reality has been distorted indelibly by the very act of observing. Reality is impossible to directly observe, ergo all we can possibly have are shards of (maybe) reality.

Thats why I posted this, people view things in different ways. Thats why simple statements like this are so debatable and interesting to look at. The world is just crazy and wonderous at the same time, we make up laws to fit it and accept them as true till we can disprove it. It's impossible to know everything while alive....I'd like to try to learn as much as I can about the world and make observations till then. Now I have a strong urge to go watch the PBS special on string theory ><.


On a side note, this would be an extremely interesting minor, anyone have any advice on having taken college courses on this? I know I'm doing either a Chemical or Nuclear Engineering major(I still have time to decide on that), so it would be very easy for me to pick up physics or chemistry as a minor, but I think philosophy is pretty important, and it would be interesting too.

[Inamorata]

I like learning about different terms and their simular or nonsimular meanings. My point being is that knowledge is the key. No matter if its the wrong answer or the right. You learn either way. You can either learn from the mistakes you or others make. Or simply you can learn from straight forward answers. Nothing is too compicated to understand. Looks truely can be deceiving. ^^; I'm not much of a mathmatition, but I do love figuring things out.. I'm sure we all do.

[Wio]

People knew, before Aristotle, all of this stuff. The truth is that Aristotle was probably one of those philosopher that had people thinking that A might not be A. That way he could say "A is A" without people saying "duh" at him.

[Leorina]

For some reason, I can understand this. It strains my brain a bit, but I get slightly understand this. I pray that no one asks me to explain because it's just one of those things you can picture and understand in your head, but it's difficult to get out with words.
The only example I could offer is "I am myself." That is what I understand from the website in the first post.

[Eris]

On a side note, this would be an extremely interesting minor, anyone have any advice on having taken college courses on this? I know I'm doing either a Chemical or Nuclear Engineering major(I still have time to decide on that), so it would be very easy for me to pick up physics or chemistry as a minor, but I think philosophy is pretty important, and it would be interesting too.

I'm in a similar position as you. I'm getting a BSc in engineering physics (Swedish academia is a bit different to American academia, we don't have minors and majors), and take stray courses in philosophy whenever I can. It's purely egotistical, I find it helps improve me as a person, to view the world in a different light, it won't help me get a job or anything, but I refuse to let that be my main worry in life.

Philosophy in union with science is a great combination. Science gives you a lot of information about the world, but rarely the wisdom to really understand the world, but that's a gap philosophy will fill up.

[Inamorata]

I know this may seem weird, but this song reminds me of life... in a weird sence...written by Madonna, Mirwais Ahmadzai, and Joe Henry

Don't tell me to stop
Tell the rain not to drop
Tell the wind not to blow
'Cause you said so, mmm

Tell the sun not to shine
Not to get up this time, no, no
Let it fall by the way
But don't leave me where I lay down

(Chorus)

Tell me love isn't true
It's just something that we do
Tell me everything I'm not but
please don't tell me to stop

Tell the leaves not to turn
But don't ever tell me I'll learn, no, no
Take the black off a crow
But don't tell me I have to go

Tell the bed not to lay
Like the open mouth of a grave, yeah
Not to stare up at me
Like a calf down on its knees

(chorus)

Tell me love isn't true
It's just something that we do
Tell me everything I'm not but
don't ever tell me to stop

(Chorus)

Don't you ever
Tell me love isn't true
It's just something that we do
Don't you ever
Tell me everything I'm not but
don't ever tell me to stop

Don't you ever
please don't, please don't,
please don't tell me to stop

Don't you ever tell me (don't you), ever
Don't ever tell me to stop

Tell the rain not to drop
Tell the bed not to lay
Like the open mouth of a grave, yeah
Not to stare up at me
Like a calf down on its knees

[Momokachan]

Here's how reality works, even though most people give this no real thought:
A is A, unless it's B.
B is B, unless it's C.
And so on.
Basically, we can't rely on what we percieve to be real.

[demon_girl_]

i would agree with the whole A is A thing, but we still sometimes don't see other things to, so keep a open mind on that...

[Z.link]

A is A, unless it's B.
B is B, unless it's C.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sounds like the same thing as A is A ><. Of course everything isn't one "A", theres an infinite amount of everything (or at least such a large number, that we could not comprehend it, basically infinity from our prospective) in the universe, therefore there are an infinite amount of identities if no two things are alike.

It's purely egotistical, I find it helps improve me as a person, to view the world in a different light, it won't help me get a job or anything, but I refuse to let that be my main worry in life.

I perfer most of my things to be purely egotistical =). I take great joy when I am able to solve something like an abstract math problem (zomg geek =P), and I learn to learn. Although I do think philosophy will help you get a job, just not directly.

"A philosophic system is an integrated view of existence. As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation -- or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind's wings should have grown."

[Momokachan]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sounds like the same thing as A is A ><. Of course everything isn't one "A", theres an infinite amount of everything (or at least such a large number, that we could not comprehend it, basically infinity from our prospective) in the universe, therefore there are an infinite amount of identities if no two things are alike.

Well, take A to be one single, consistent concept. A will always be A, unless the circumstances cause it to be B. Basically, reality is circumstantial, and I challenge anyone to prove it otherwise.