Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Hank Kerchief
A is A in no way implies there is no change.

But if we accept "dynamism" as an axiom, then you have no way to know what A is at any given time. For it to be an objective truth, you have to assume that it remains unchanged. If its properties changed due to dynamism -- well, then, the idea that A is an objective truth is no longer true -- what was true at one instant may not be true the next.

Thus, even "A is A" requires you to make non-objective assumptions about the nature of any A you happen to be considering.

509 posted on 05/03/2003 6:37:01 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 478 | View Replies ]


To: r9etb
A is A in no way implies there is no change.

But if we accept "dynamism" as an axiom, then you have no way to know what A is at any given time. For it to be an objective truth, you have to assume that it remains unchanged. If its properties changed due to dynamism -- well, then, the idea that A is an objective truth is no longer true -- what was true at one instant may not be true the next.

Thus, even "A is A" requires you to make non-objective assumptions about the nature of any A you happen to be considering.

You have no idea how hard it is not to be sarcastic. I have very patiently pointed out in other posts, "A is A" is epistimological, not metaphysical. "A" can be any concept. For example, let A be a clock.

Now a clock cannot be a clock unless there is change, namely, the moving of the hands of the clock (or the changing of the numbers if it is a digital clock). In this case, A would not be A if there were not change (or A is a broken A).

Why is this so hard to understand?

Here are some more As that could not be As if there were no change: an explosion, a flame, a river, a symphony, a dog, a cat, (or any other living organism).

I think the problem is that you do not understand the identity of a thing is determined by its qualities. Some changing characteristic is a quality of many things, including all living things.

Now consider your statement, "but if we accept "dynamism" as an axiom, then you have no way to know what A is at any given time." So, let's assume you have a child. Your statement would mean, since children almost never cease to be in motion, you could never know your child was a child, much less yours, because it was changing. You must live in a very uncertain world.

Hank

514 posted on 05/03/2003 7:09:47 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 509 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson