[Dominic Harr]

Unless you're prepared to give us a means of knowing what A is, then you can't accept it as an axiom, either.

Actually, "A is A" is almost a circular argument because it does not require you define either. Because the very point is that "this thing" is "this thing".

You define it by itself. That is the whole point.

And if you have trouble with such a simple concept, I'm not sure what the point of this conversation *is*.

[r9etb]

Actually, "A is A" is almost a circular argument because it does not require you define either. Because the very point is that "this thing" is "this thing".

It's all very well to say this -- in the abstract it sounds logical. But try actually applying it to something. Then you're forced right away to begin making assumptions about what A is; and whether A right now, is the same as A, ten minutes ago; or whether A is the only possible "thing" in the context of what you're talking about (which is where objectivism leaves the tracks).

In other words, all you can really say for sure is that "A is A ... at this instant."

Now, in some cases it's rather easy to accept the claim -- that 1=1, for example.

However, see Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.