Just wait until he learns that we figured out how to calculate sums of infinite series hundreds of years ago! Watching his intellectual journey from the iron age to the 16th century has been truly heartwarming. Next up: Alchemy!
This same stooge thinks ReinyDays is going to teach me something about math. . . .
Hey, everyone,
Fort Fun Indiana thought that the formal explication of the law of Identity in the literary canon as a coordinate principle = the origin of the same, when in fact this principle was formally elucidated by Aristotle centuries before it was explicated as a coordinate principle; indeed, it was later explicated by Andreas and others as the foundational coordinate principle!
But aside from the historical academics of the matter, one wonders if
Fort Fun Indiana believes that the laws of logic didn’t exist at all in human consciousness until Plato and Aristotle, respectively, formally elucidated them. According to
Fort Fun Indiana, apparently,
whatever is wasn’t whatever it is, for example, until Aristotle elucidated that
whatever is, is. In other words, in that moment
whatever is suddenly became
whatever it is. Magic! Talk about a total lack of understanding of things! This leads one to wonder if
Fort Fun Indiana’s mind is boggled by LSD or by a lack of common sense. I think it’s a combination of both given that he, like Hollie, thinks the impossible is possible.
Let’s review things again, Fort Fun Indiana. . . .
I never claimed that the law of identity was formally codified by any school of thought before the others in history, which is the predicate of your prevarication, apparently! What did you do, punk? Google something and then pass your filth off as original thought sans any real understanding as you failed to thoroughly investigate the matter? Yeah, that's what you did alright. How many other lies have you been telling behind my back while I ignored you?
What did you mean by
recently?
The only thing that makes any sense is that you're stupidly going on about the order of historical codification, precisely because you don't grasp the conceptual ramifications of the matter.
I'm talking about the conceptual order of logic itself, and
it was Aristotle in the Third Century B.C. who was the first to formally elucidate the law of identity, shortly after Plato elucidated the other two in the literature. This was centuries before Aristotle's elucidation of it was, finally, formally codified by the Schoolmen of Scotus.
Centuries before the Fourteenth Century!
The law of identity: Whatever is, is.
For all a: a = a [or for all x: x = x, as you quoted me from an earlier post, apparently]
Regarding this law, Aristotle wrote:
First then this at least is obviously true, that the word "be" or "not be" has a definite meaning, so that not everything will be "so and not so". Again, if "man" has one meaning, let this be "two-footed animal"; by having one meaning I understand this:—if "man" means "X", then if A is a man "X" will be what "being a man" means for him. (It makes no difference even if one were to say a word has several meanings, if only they are limited in number; for to each definition there might be assigned a different word. For instance, we might say that "man" has not one meaning but several, one of which would have one definition, viz. "two-footed animal", while there might be also several other definitions if only they were limited in number; for a peculiar name might be assigned to each of the definitions. If, however, they were not limited but one were to say that the word has an infinite number of meanings, obviously reasoning would be impossible; for not to have one meaning is to have no meaning, and if words have no meaning our reasoning with one another, and indeed with ourselves, has been annihilated; for it is impossible to think of anything if we do not think of one thing; but if this is possible, one name might be assigned to this thing.) —Aristotle,
Metaphysics, Book IV, Part 4, (
Law of thought - Wikipedia)
William Hamilton of the Nineteenth Century whose work is still regarded as the leading authority on the history of the development of logic from the Classical era to modernity holds, like Antonius Andres and I, that the law of identity is
"[t]he principle of all logical affirmation and definition."
The law of Identity, I stated, was not explicated as a coordinate principle till a comparatively recent period. The earliest author in whom I have found this done, is
Antonius Andreas, a scholar of Scotus, who flourished at the end of the thirteenth and beginning of the fourteenth century. The schoolman, in the fourth book of his Commentary of Aristotle's Metaphysics—a commentary which is full of the most ingenious and original views—
not only asserts to the law of Identity a coordinate dignity with the law of Contradiction, but, against Aristotle, he maintains that the principle of Identity, and not the principle of Contradiction, is the one absolutely first. The formula in which Andreas expressed it was Ens est ens. Subsequently to this author, the question concerning the relative priority of the two laws of Identity and of Contradiction became one much agitated in the schools; though there were also found some who asserted to the law of Excluded Middle this supreme rank. —William Hamilton
Further, ever since the Nineteenth Century, the law of identity has been almost universally held to be the foundation of the laws of thought and rightly so, given that it inherently entails the other two and, thusly, the other two in terms of conceptualization are extensions of the same. That's why philosophers routinely list the law of identity first, followed by (2) the law of non-contradiction, (3) the law of the excluded middle and, in recent history, (4) the law of sufficient reason, including Schopenhauer, by the way, although he contended that the laws of thought could be reduced to the excluded middle and sufficient reason, with identity and non-contradiction as corollaries of the excluded middle. I follow his reasoning, but I and most others disagree, as the law of the excluded middle can be and is routinely suspended for scientific purposes. Schopenhauer failed to anticipate that, just as he failed to appreciate the fact that the law of sufficient reason conceptually alludes back to the foundational law of logic. But, then, Schopenhauer was an atheist and, thus, a fool.
Of course, you wouldn't understand why it's sometimes suspended for scientific purposes, anymore than you understood what your source, whatever it is, was actually talking about regarding the law of identity's
formal explication as a coordinate principle in the historical timeline. Clearly, you, being an ignoramus, interpreted that to regard
the origin of the law of identity itself.
