(no subject)
Okay, William Vallicella just won me back. Damn bitches.
I've always been mystified by people who, in the middle of some political discussion, will all of a sudden pronounce "A = A" and think they've won the argument. I never could quite grasp how they thought an entirely noncontroversial rule of logic--necessary to do anything at all, really--was germane to the conversation, and how they could think anyone wouldn't already understand the fact that "A = A".
Turns out it's Ayn Rand's fault.
Vallicella quotes Rand's definition of "the primacy of existence":the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity.
and then points out that, in fact,:If we think about Rand’s axiom, we see that it conflates three distinct propositions:
P1: Each thing exists independently of any consciousness.
P2: Each thing satisfies the Law of Identity in that, for each x, x = x.
P3: The identity of each thing consists in its possession of a specific nature.
Clearly these three are logically distinct.
[. . .]
Rand is deeply confused.
He does not note that, in addition to being independent of each other (and the rest of the claims Rand might make), the first two of these are bloody universally accepted. IMO the third is not clearly stated.
Anyway, you should read Vallicella's takedown of Rand. It's instructive, even if it's a bit uncharitable.
I've always been mystified by people who, in the middle of some political discussion, will all of a sudden pronounce "A = A" and think they've won the argument. I never could quite grasp how they thought an entirely noncontroversial rule of logic--necessary to do anything at all, really--was germane to the conversation, and how they could think anyone wouldn't already understand the fact that "A = A".
Turns out it's Ayn Rand's fault.
Vallicella quotes Rand's definition of "the primacy of existence":the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity.
and then points out that, in fact,:If we think about Rand’s axiom, we see that it conflates three distinct propositions:
P1: Each thing exists independently of any consciousness.
P2: Each thing satisfies the Law of Identity in that, for each x, x = x.
P3: The identity of each thing consists in its possession of a specific nature.
Clearly these three are logically distinct.
[. . .]
Rand is deeply confused.
He does not note that, in addition to being independent of each other (and the rest of the claims Rand might make), the first two of these are bloody universally accepted. IMO the third is not clearly stated.
Anyway, you should read Vallicella's takedown of Rand. It's instructive, even if it's a bit uncharitable.